B.M.LAL, J.

1. The State Government of Bihar and others, who are appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal, have presented this appeal on 2-7-96. The appeal appears to be barred by 146 days i.e. 4 months and 27 days. An Interlocutory application being I.A. No. 443 of 1997 has been filed on behalf of the appellants praying for extension of period of limitation.

2. Having heard learned counsel Mr. K. P. Yadav for the appellants and Mr. M. P. Shukla for the respondents, we proceed to examine whether the requirements for extension of period of limitation have been fulfilled by successfully establishing and proving good cause and sufficient cause, which actually prevented the appellants from filing the appeal well within the period of limitation and justifying the delay of 146 days i.e.4 months and 27 days.

3. To deal with the case, we may mention here that sufficient cause and good cause are not defined under the Limitation Act. But in common parlance one may draw an inference that they mean a cause which is beyond control of the party seeking aid of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and that is why the term sufficient cause has been couched in Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it be construed pragmatic but not pedantic so as to advance substantial justice. With this touchstone each case is to be judged while passing orders on matters relating to extension of period of limitation under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act.

4. The impugned judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 1050 of 1994 was passed on 5-2-96. It is submitted that on the same day i.e. on 5-2-96 arguments were heard and judgment was dictated in the open Court. It is stated that the letter of the Government counsel with regard to the decision in the case was received in the office concerned on 15-2-96. But surprisingly enough it does not appear that any application was made in time for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment. Thus laches on the part of the appellants began from the date of delivery of judgment itself as nothing has been stated in this regard that at any point of time from the date of delivery of judgment till the date of filing of the instant appeal, any step has been taken to obtain the certified copy of the order impugned.

5. This legal position is not disputed that while filing Letters Patent Appeal, certified copy of the impugned judgment is not required to be appended with the memo of appeal but in that case the appeal is to be filed within the statutory period of 30 days; but where certified copy of the impugned judgment is appended with the memo of appeal, the period of 30 days limitation is reckoned after deducting the time/period which is spent/consumed in obtaining the certified copy.

6. It is stated that letter of the Government counsel with regard to the decision dated 5-2-96 was received in the office on 15-2-96 i.e. after 10 days. But it is not stated as to on which date the Government counsel wrote letter giving the above said information. Thus this delay of 10 days has not been explained at all by the Department.

7. It appears that on 16-2-96 the office assistant placed the file to the Sectional Officer, who, on the same day placed the file before the Dy. Director (T). The Dy. Director (T) appears to have placed the file before the Director on 24-2-96. Here again a delay of 8 days has been caused without explaining the same satisfactorily. The file was placed by the Director to the Secretary on the same day who passed order on 27-2-96 for obtaining a certified copy of the order impugned dated 5-2-96. The file was return to the dealing assistant on 28-2-96.

8. Now it is clear that on 27-2-96 order was passed by the competent authority for obtaining a certified copy of the order impugned. But it appears that for issuing letter the file was again moved from table to table in order of hierarchy and ultimately on 15-3-96 letter was issued for getting a certified copy. Thus again a delay of 16 days has occurred without furnishing any pla