MC 3063/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, for the a pplicants and Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the opposite party. At the outset, Mr. Barugohain submits on the basis of a letter N o. HLA.714/98/Pt.-I/33 dated 28/2/2011 of the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare (A) Department, that as the process to explo re the possibility of an amicable settlement vis-à-vis the issues involved is in progress, the hearing of the application in hand be further adjourned. We have noticed from the order sheets that on this very ground the consideration of this application has been postponed from time to time i.e. 10/5/2010, 27/8/2010, 9/1 1/2010 and finally on 20/1/2011. On the last date i.e. 20/1/2011 though a Divisi on Bench of this Court had granted adjournment to accommodate the parties to fin alise the process of settlement, it observed as follows:- In view of the above, though this matter is adjourned, it is made clear that no further adjournment would be allowed as the matter is pending for last t wo years. Let the matter come up for hearing on 8/3/2011 In view of the above and the delay that has occurred meanwhile, we are not incli ned to accede to the prayer for adjournment. The application discloses that the opposite party as plaintiff had instituted Mo ney Suit 190/1993 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Kamrup, at Guwah ati, now designated as Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kamrup for a decree amongst ot hers for an amount of Rs. 1,49,736.92. The claim was made on the ground that tho ugh in terms of the supply orders made by the defendant No. 4 therein it had eff ected the supplies and an amount of Rs. 83,142.25 as cost of medicine supplied a nd another sum of Rs. 66,594.67 by way of interest was payable the same was deni ed to them (opposite party/plaintiff). After a full contest the suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 19/8/98. The accompanying appeal is against the sa me. Admittedly there is a delay of 3065 days in filing it. According to the applicants, after the passing of the aforementioned judgment an d decree, the opposite party instituted Money Execution Case No. 23/98 in the Co urt of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kamrup, Guwahati and on the receipt of the notice thereof they (applicants) entrusted the Joint Director of Health Service s to obtain a certified copy of the judgment and decree and to transmit all docu ments in connection with the suit to the Directorate of Health Services. The doc uments were, however, not made available for quite some time and, therefore, t he request was reiterated. The applicants have stated that thereafter the Joint Director of Health Services, Nalbari, sent some documents and applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree, which was eventually made available o n 20/5/2006. The applicants have endeavoured to explain the delay by contending the following :- (a) The matter was referred to the learned Additional Advocate General vide letter No. HLA.29/99/16 dated 27/8/1999 seeking his advice/opinion about the adv isibility of filing of the appeal. (b) Meanwhile a number of money suits also instituted by the opposite party had been decreed against the applicants in which the learned Advocate General, A ssam, opined vide his letter dated 24/3/2000 in favour of filing appeals. (c) Several appeals were, as advised, have been filed and are pending final disposal. These appeals too were delayed for 500/600 days. (d) The matter was taken up by the Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell w hich required information from the Director of Health Services and the same was submitted vide letter No. HSPB/JD7/2000/534 dated 13/11/2001. (e) The Director of Health Services vide letter No. HSPB/J/7/2000/1765 dated 6/12/2005 had engaged private lawyers as Standing Counsel for the State in thes e cases for better conduct thereof. (f) It was thereafter that the Government desired to take legal opinion from the Corporate Law Group, New Delhi, which accordingly furnished its opinion in the matter in the year 2006. (g) The Director of Health Services, Assam, thereafter contacted the office of the Senior Government Advocate, Assam, Guwahati, who advised the applicants t o furnish the certified copy of the judgment and decree, the pleadings and depos itions in the suit and other relevant papers. The appeal was filed finally on 13/4/2007. No affidavit in opposition has been f iled by the opposite party. The grant or refusal of the prayer for condonation o f delay being within the realm of equitable consideration of this Court, absence of any affidavit by the opposite party in law ought not to detain it to adjudic ate the present application. A bare perusal of the averments made in the application set out in extenso herei nabove, in the opinion of this Court, not only demonstrates apparent lack of sin cerity, casualness, inaction, negligence and a cavalier attitude of the applican ts but also betrays utmost indifference to the rule of law. The applicants being fully aware about the period of limitation prescribed by law for the purpose of filing the accompanying appeal, as the attendant facts and circumstances would disclose, they were not at all serious in pursuing their cause to prefer the app eal against the judgment and decree passed as long back as on 19/8/1998. It is n ot the duration of delay, alone which testifies the lapse on the part of the app licants, the inadequacy of the grounds put forward in the application, in our op inion disentitles them wholly for any order condoning delay that has occurred. T he averments lack in precision and are vague in material particulars so much so that a conjoint reading thereof lack persuasion to accept the correctness thereo f to exercise the discretion for grant of the equitable relief to them. Condonat ion of delay is not a matter of right and has to be essentially preceded by the existence of sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the facts and circumstances of the case, to reiterate, the avermen ts made in the application, do not in the estimate of this Court constitute a su fficient cause as comprehended hereinabove. The delay thus cannot be condoned in the interest of justice. The application, therefore, stands rejected.