IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.930 of 2008 ***** 1. Bihar State Financial Corporation through its Managing Director, Fraser Road, Patna. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Fraser Road, Patna. 3. Sri N. Prakash son of Late H.P.Srivastava, Deputy Manager cum Conducting Officer, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Fraser Road, Patna. …. …. Respondents-Appellants Versus Brajendra Jha, son of Late Yogendra Jha, resident of C/o Sri R.P.Sinha, Chandmari Road, P.S. Kankarbagh, District-Patna. …. …. Petitioner-Respondent ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 27th November, 2008. This Letters Patent Appeal suffers from delay of 206 days and for condonation thereof an application (I.A. No. 6962 of 2008) has been made. The explanation set out in the application for condonation of delay reads thus: - “2. That it is stated that the impugned order was passed on 26.3.2008. It took eleven days in procuring the certified copy of the impugned judgment. Thereafter the counsel for the Corporation was informed regarding the judgment. Some time was consumed in taking decision for filing an appeal against the order/judgment. Thereafter legal opinion was taken in the matter. When legal opinion was given to file appeal, then the file was sent for preparation of the appeal. In all these process considerable time was consumed, which has delayed the filing of the present appeal. There is delay of about six months twenty two days in filing the present appeal.” - 2 - 2. The explanation is as vague as it could be. The date on which the counsel informed the Corporation of the judgment is not disclosed. Again there is a vague statement that some time was consumed in taking decision for filing an appeal against the order/judgment. How much time was taken and by whom for filing the appeal is not at all stated. There are no details as to when the legal opinion was sought and on what date the legal opinion was received for filing the appeal. Such vague statement does not inspire confidence and cannot be held to be constituting sufficient cause for condonation of long delay of 206 days. 3. Consequently, application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 6962 of 2008) is rejected. 4. Since the appeal is barred by time and the application for condonation of delay has been rejected by us, the appeal has to be dismissed as time barred and we order accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-