MC 3754/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL (Amitava Roy, J) Heard Mr Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. B Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.4. A delay of 113 days in filing the accompanying appeal is being sought to be condoned by the instant application. According to the applicant, M/s Agradoo t Publishers Private Limited, a registered Company, after the judgment and order impugned in the accompanying appeal was passed on 2.6.2010, applied for a certi fied copy thereof on 3.6.2010 which it received on 11.6.2010. The Managing Direc tor of the applicant Company thereafter fell ill and was under medical treatment from 30.6.2010 to 30.9.2010. After he recovered, the matter was placed before h im and eventually laid it before the Board of Directors on 6.10.2010 whereupon t he Board decided to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order aforemention ed. The resolution of the Board of Directors was communicated to the concerned B ranch and the learned counsel for the applicant after being contacted, he drew u p the Memorandum of Appeal on 12.10.2010. As this Court was on vacation, the app eal was eventually filed on the date of re-opening i.e. 1.11.2010. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), Bakijai Branch it has been inter alia contended that the grounds recite d in the application are not sufficient to condone the delay. It has been pleade d as well that even assuming that the Managing Director of the applicant Company was ill from 30.6.2010 to 30.9.2010, it did not imply that the affairs of the C ompany had hit a roadblock and, therefore, for all intents and purposes its acti vities had come to a standstill. The answering opposite party has also averred t hat not only there is no explanation for the delay between 11.6.2010 to 29.6.201 0, the statements bearing on the explanation for delay are absolutely vague and vacuous. The opposite party No.4 while generally endorsing the above stand has in additio n averred against the authenticity of the ground of illness of the Managing Dire ctor of the applicant Company contending that during the relevant period on vari ous occasions he in fact had actively participated/ presided over various meetin gs/ functions. The rival averments are supported by solemn affirmation. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view tha t the reasons cited in the application cannot be construed to be sufficient for condonation of delay as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . On a overall consideration of the averments made in the rival pleadings, we ar e left unsatisfied about the sufficiency of the grounds. Not only according to u s the plea of illness of the Managing Director of the Company from 30.6.2010 top 30.9.2010 is unconvincing so much so that the affairs of the Company could not have been pursued by any other authority thereof, the illness as is reflected fr om the medical certificates also according to us would not have rendered him phy sically incapable of looking into the Company’s affairs as a whole. Though it is trite law that while analyzing the ground(s) for condonation of del ay a relatively liberal approach ought to be adopted, the satisfaction of the Co urt is essentially fact oriented and would necessarily based on the contextual f acts. In this view of the matter, in the attending facts and circumstances of th e case, having regard to the materials on record, we are constrained to hold tha t the applicant has failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the acc ompanying appeal as envisaged under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The a pplication, therefore, is rejected. No costs.