IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.97 of 2011. Date of decision: 31.03.2011. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. … …Appellant Versus Smt.Meena Devi and Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: None. Dev Darshan Sud,J. CMP(M) No.248 of 2011 & FAO No.97 of 2011. This application has been preferred by the applicant herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. The appeal is barred by 142 days. The explanation put forth by the appellant is that the file was mixed up in the other record of the appellant and was traced out after sometime. 2. So far as the law of condonation of delay is concerned, it is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and Others, (2010)8 SCC 685, wherein the Court 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 has emphasized that it is the quality of the explanation which has to be accepted. The averments made in this application would not constitute valid explanation for invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Even without adverting to that, if delay is condoned, what I find is that the questions raised in this appeal are squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi, (2009)1 ACJ 1 SC and Sunil Kumar vs. Lalita Devi, (2009)1 LHLJ 700. 4. In these circumstances, application for condonation of delay is allowed. I find no merit in the main appeal which is dismissed. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of. March 31, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.