IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.37 of 2008 O.A.KHAN Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA 2. VIJAY DAS 3. B.B.JHA ----------- 3 06.01.2009 I.A. No. 1392 of 2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner on the limitation application. It appears that the present application has been filed after a delay of about one year. Counsel for the petitioner admits that limitation expired on 29.8.2007 whereas the present application has been preferred on 15.7.2008. The delay has been sought to be explained in the limitation application in paragraph nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 which read thus: “Para 3: That the concerning file of the present case has been endorsed to me on 31.10.2007. Thereafter several information was given to the D.M., Saharsa for authorization of competent authority. Para 4: That it is submitted that the complainant filed chirkut on 5.6.2007 for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order dated 30.5.2007 which has been supplied to the prosecution on 21.6.2007. Para:5: That it is submitted that Railway Department received information from the D.M. Saharsa for authorization of competent authority. Para-6: That it is humbly and respectfully submitted that the delay has been caused due to internal communication and movement of file from Railway Department to D.M. Saharsa and D.M. Saharsa and D.M. Saharsa send file to law Department, New Secretariat, Patna and law Department send the file to this Hon'ble Court for obtaining necessary direction/sanction which was the requirement of for filing Govt. - 2 - appeal or S.L.A.” This Court finds that the applicant has tried to explain delay w.e.f. 31.10.2007 whereas admittedly the limitation expired on 29.8.2007. So far as the explanation thereafter is concerned, the pleadings appears to be vague not inspiring confidence of the Court. Even if this Court takes a liberal view, the pleadings are not such which persuade this Court to grant the application. Accordingly, this application seeking condonation of delay stands rejected. Since the prayer for granting condonation of delay has been rejected, the appeal has itself become incompetent being barred by limitation and as such the same is also dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)