Ast 1 ca9469.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9469 OF 1999 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9470 OF 1999 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.40087 OF 1998 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant. Vs. Govindrao Narayan Ghorpade. ... Respondent. -------------- Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for applicant-State. -------------- CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 26 th MARCH, 2010. P.C. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. The first appeal is filed after delay of 2 years and 29 days. The Applicant-State seeks condonation of delay on the ground that most of the part of the delay was due to loss of original set of certified copies. The Judgment of Reference Court was rendered on 30 th July, 1996 and application for copies was filed on 7 th August, 1996 and the copies were ready on 9 th November, 1997. It appears that proposal was submitted to the Law and Judiciary Ast 2 ca9469.09.sxw department for approval to file an appeal. The approval was granted on 4/3/1997. The office of Government Pleader received the copies alongwith the resolution of the Law and Judiciary Department on 6/4/1997. It is alleged that on 1/9/1998 loss of certified copies was noticed and therefore, a fresh application was filed for the certified copies. 29 th September, 1998, the second set of certified copies was received by the office of the Government Pleader. The first appeal was filed on 27 th November, 1999. 2. The contention of the applicant is that out of the total delay of 25 months, 15 months delay can be attributed to the loss of first set of certified copies. It is alleged that the delay is due to the accidental loss of the certified copies and without any intention, as such. The learned AGP submits that liberal approach is required to be taken in view of the circumstances stated in the application. He would submit that the delay may be condoned for the reasons which have been explained in the application. 3. I find it difficult to countenance the argument. It is true that ordinarily liberal approach is required to be taken in such a matter. Liberal approach however, does not mean that any kind of explanation would serve the purpose. The Law as provided under section 5 of the Ast 3 ca9469.09.sxw Limitation Act requires “sufficient cause” to be shown for the purpose of condonation of delay. A Division Bench of this Court in “State of Maharashtra & ors. v/s. Vithu Kalya Govari & Ors.” 2008(4) All M.R. 856 held that such explanation of “procedural hassles cannot be regarded as sufficient”. In “Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. v/s. Jose Prazeres DE Piedade Pinto & Ors.” 2006(4) Mh.L.J. 318, it is held that the explanation must be satisfactory. In the present case, it does not stand to reason that second set of certified copy could not be obtained immediately after the loss of first set of copies was noticed. It is difficult to appreciate that 15 months’ time was required to be spent for the purpose of obtaining second set of certified copies. I find that the delay is enormous, inadequately explained and as such, is uncondonable. In this view of the matter, the Application is dismissed. 4. Civil Application for stay is disposed of in view of the dismissal of the above application. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR, J ]