MC 1559/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B. SAHA Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deka, learned Counse l for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Mr.Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Go goi Medhi, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.8. The instant application has been filed for consideration of the delay of 40 days in preferring the accompanying appeal against the judgment and order passed on 27.10.2009 in a series of writ petitions, the lead case being Writ Petition(C) N o.5901/2006 (Md. Riaz Ali vs. State of Assam and Ors.). Incidentally, the applic ant herein is the writ petitioner in the aforementioned WP(C) No. 5901/2006. According to the applicant after the judgement sought to be impugned, was passed on 27.10.2009, a copy thereof was obtained on 20.11.2009. His learned Advocate on a perusal thereof advised him to file an appeal. It was thereafter that he contacted his learned counsel on 20.12.2009 and applied for a certified copy of the judgment and order on 23.12.2009, and received the same on 05.01.2010. The w rit appeal was filed on the next day, i.e. on 06.01.20.10. In the meantime, a d elay of 40 days had occurred. On repeated queries made by this Court, the learned counsel for the applicant co uld not explain the delay between 27.10.2009 and 20.11.2009 and also the time ga p after he was advised by his learned counsel to prefer an appeal, i.e. 20.11.20 09 to 20.12.2009. The steps taken by him for obtaining the certified copy, howev er are in close succession. The manner in which the applicant had proceeded to file the appeal, according to us, demonstrates his callousness and deliberate in action, more so in view of the period of limitation prescribed by law for the ap peal eventually preferred. It is a trite law that in entertaining an application for condonation of delay, the sufficiency and persuasiveness of the ground offered therefor is decisive an d the extent of delay is not determinative of the order to be passed. Not only, the party in default has to offer sufficient cause to explain the delay, such e quitable relief cannot be extended on sympathetic or compassionate consideration s alone. In the facts as narrated hereinabove, we are left unconvinced that the applicant had pursued his cause with necessary vigilance keeping in mind the period of li mitation prescribed by law. We are therefore not inclined to exercise our equita ble jurisdiction to condone the delay in preferring accompanying appal. This Mi sc. Case, therefore stands rejected.