D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) I.A. No. 876 of 2016. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 3349 days in preferring this Civil Miscellaneous Petition for restoration of L.P.A. No. 668 of 2004 which was dismissed as the applicant had not taken any steps for filing of the requisites etc. for issuance of notice to the respondent. The order of dismissal of L.P.A. No. 668 of 2004 was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 8th September, 2005.
(2.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this interlocutory application, as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, there are no reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. For the ready reference, paragraphs 2 and 3 of this interlocutory application, which have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that paragraphs 2 and 3 are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay, read as under: "2. That it is stated that due to lack of communication of passing of the aforesaid judgment the petitioner failed to file the present L.P.A. within the stipulated time period. 3. That is stated that the appellant/petitioner after consultation with the counsel/advocate applied for the certified copy of the order and thereafter the memo of appeal was prepared."
(3.) Looking to these paragraphs, there are no reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. The lack of communication of passing of the decision by the Division Bench of this Court and some time has been consumed in getting the certified copy, are no valid reasons for condonation of delay. Moreover, nothing has been mentioned that on which date, application was preferred for getting certified copy and on which date, certified copy of the order dated 8th September, 2005 in L.P.A. No. 668 of 2004 was received. Thus, absolutely vague reasons are given in paragraphs 2 and 3. The applicant has not revealed when it has got knowledge of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 668 of 2004. Thus, absolutely vague reasons are stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this interlocutory application.;