IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.1 of 2002 STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus BINOD KUMAR OJHA ----------- 22/ 01.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit no. 187 of 1994, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent for declaration that the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna dated 24.10.1994 vide memo no. 11-Mu-2-94/99-Ma-770 Patna is not in accordance with the directions given by this Court in the orders passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2324 of 1993 and C.W.J.C. No. 3708 of 1993 and also for payment of salary of I.A. trained teacher as well as for declaring that the action of the R.D.D.E. not to let the plaintiff join after vacation of suspension as per orders of R.D.D.E., Patna is wrong and illegal and also for other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants, who are appellants in this court, inspite of more than sufficient time having been granted, did not file their written statement and the Incharge A.P.P. with permission of the court had only chosen to cross-examine the P.Ws.. The learned trial court, namely Subordinate Judge-III, Buxar considered the entire matter in detail and decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 23.12.1995. It transapires that against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, defendant-appellant filed Title Appeal No. 57 of 1996 on 18.11.1996 and also filed a petition under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay of ten months and twelve 2 days in filing of the memorandum of appeal. The learned lower appellate court has considered the entire matter in detail and found that although defendant-appellant no.7 claimed that he learnt about the judgment and decree of the trial court on 22.06.1996 he could not disclose the source of his information and hence the said bald statement is clearly not reliable. It was further held by the lower appellate court that even if the claim of defendant-appellant no.7 that he got knowledge of the trial court judgment and decree on 22.06.1996 is believed, the memorandum of appeal was filed about five months thereafter for which no cogent explanation was given. It may be mentioned here that the traveling of the file from one table to the other table and from one office to the other office for seeking opinion, approval or sanction of the authorities cannot be held to be a valid ground for condoning the delay. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved for consideration in this second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )