MC 3685/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JSUTICE AC UPADHYAY Amitava Roy, J Heard Mr. RL Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. HK Deka, learned c ounsel for the opposite party/respondent. A delay of 4 years 9 months and 23 days in filing the accompanying RFA is sought to be condoned by the instant application. The facts leading to the filing of t he instant application have to be narrated. The opposite party as plaintiff inst ituted Money Suit No. 52/2003 in the court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Guwahati for a decree, inter alia, for an amount of Rs. 19,45,078/- against the applicant. It entered appearance in the suit, and on 03.01.2004 submitted its written state ment on merits resisting the claim of the opposite party/plaintiff. The written statement was then verified by one Vijay Kumar Agarwal as one of the Director of the applicant. He thereafter lost contact with the learned counsel. As a result , the suit proceeded ex-parte and the witnesses of the opposite party/plaintiff could not be cross-examined on its behalf. Eventually, a judgment was passed on 22.08.2005, decreeing the aforementioned amount against the applicant. Decree wa s drawn up on 17.11.2005 and thereafter Money Execution Case No. 6/2007 was inst ituted in the same Court. It was, on 14.08.2007 that coming to learn about the e xecution case that the applicant was aware of the judgment and decree as above. It, thereafter, after collecting necessary documents filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter for short referred to as the Code) before the learned trial Court. This applicat ion on contest was rejected. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached this Cour t with an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (d) of the Code, which was registered as MFA No. 221/2010. This appeal was dismissed by this Court on 11.08.2010 with the observation that as the judgment and decree was on contest and not ex-parte , the proper remedy was by way of regular appeal against the same. By the time, a delay of 2 years and 24 days counted from the date of the judgment and decree for preferring such appeal had occurred. The applicant on the very same date i.e. 11.08.2010 applied for a certified copy of the order of this Court and obtained it on 09.09.2010. Eventually, the accom panying appeal along with this instant application was filed on 11.10.2010. Acco rding to the applicant, it had bonafide pursued its relief in law by preferring the MFA No. 221/2010 before this Court. Moreover, it had to take necessary steps , inter alia, consult its Advocates, obtain essential clearances from the concer ned authorities., so as to enable it to file the accompanying appeal. In the pro cess, in all, a delay of 4 years 9 months and 23 days had occurred. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the opposite party. Mr. Yadav, has persuasively argued that as the applicant had been pursuing bonaf ide its remedy in law before a wrong forum, the period of delay of 2 years and 2 4 days upto 11.08.2010 having been sufficiently explained, the same ought to be condoned. He insistently urged that the applicant being an impersonal entity, ha ving regard to the indispensable official formalities to be complied with, the d elay reckonable from 09.09.2010 is also condonable. According to it, the period from 09.09.2010 to 11.10.2010 has also been sufficiently explained. Mr. Deka, in reply has urged that the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Ac t, 1963 (hereafter for short referred to as the Act), in the facts and circumsta nces of the case is not available to the applicant. More over, there being no ex planation for the period from 09.09.2010 to 11.10.2010, the application ought to be rejected in limine, he urged. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts on record, we are of the view that though, in the facts and circums tances of the case, some relaxation in the matter of condonation of delay vis-a- vis the period upto 11.08.2010 and for that matter upto 09.09.2010 can be grante d to the applicant, no reasonable explanation for the period from 09.09.2010 til l 11.10.2010 exists. Having regard to the length of the delay that had occurred till 11.08.2010, in o ur estimate the applicant ought to have had more vigilant and careful in its app roach to minimize the time gap thereafter to approach this Court. This is more s o, when a clear indication to the above effect was given by this Court in its ju dgment and order dated 11.08.2010. The applicant being aware that the appropriat e forum for it to pursue its remedy is this Court in the form of an appeal, it o ught to have taken expeditious steps in filing the accompanying appeal. To this extent, we are of the considered opinion that the explanation furnished by the a pplicant for the period from 09.09.2010 to 11.10.2010 cannot be said to be reaso nable within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act. In that view of the matter, th e prayer for condonation of delay, as made, cannot be acceded to. The applicatio n stands rejected. No costs.