1. B. M. LAL, C.J. :-

This is an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 53 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.

2 It is contended that the judgment impugned was passed in the writ petition on 6-11-96 and the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed on 29-1-97. The appeal was filed after 83 days of the impugned judgment without filing the certified copy of the judgment and, therefore, only 30 days period which is prescribed for filing the Letters Patent Appeal is liable to be excluded and in this way the appeal is barred by 53 days.

3. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 submitted his representation and he annexed a copy of the judgment and that is how the appellants came to know about the judgment. On 14-11-96 the order was sent to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, who forwarded the same to the Chief Engineer (Commercial) of the head office of the Board. The said order along with the letter of the Electrical Superintending Engineer dated 19-11-96 was received in the office of the Board on the same day. The matter was examined at different levels and thereafter it was placed before the Chief Engineer (Commercial) on 23-11-96. The Chief Engineer (Commercial) examined the same and placed his views on 10-12-96. Thereafter it was sent to the Senior Legal Advisor. On 12-12-96 it was placed before the Member (Finance), who placed his views and endorsed the same to the Senior Legal Advisor on 16-12-96. On 17-12-96 the Senior Legal Advisor recorded his views and endorsed the same to the Member (Finance) again and the Member (Finance) observed that the order impugned has legal ramification and therefore, it may be assailed in Letters Patent Appeal. His views were approved by the Chairman of the Board on 20-12-96. However, again the Board obtained opinion from Sri. R. B. Mahto, Sr. Advocate and the file was sent to him, who recorded his opinion on 11-1-97 and thereafter the file was sent to Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate, on 20-1-97 and in this way the appeal was filed on 29-1-97.

4. Surprisingly enough, the file as averred by the appellants, was submitted before the Chief Engineer (Commercial) on 23-11-96 but he placed his views on 10-12-96 and for this long period of 18 days no explanation has been furnished and similarly inordinate delay has been caused in pushing the file from one section of the department to another section and the same has also not been explained.

5. However, respondent No. 1 controverted the above facts contending that the appellants have deliberately misrepresented the facts and the persons swearing the affidavit in support of the limitation petition has filed false affidavit. It is also contended that when the order passed in the writ petition was not complied with by the appellants for a sufficiently long time, the respondent No. 1 filed a contempt proceeding vide M.J.C. No. 183 of 1997 and only thereafter the process for filing the appeal commenced by the appellants. Thus it is submitted that the statements made in the application for condonation of delay are false, mischievous and contrary to the records and, therefore, this Court by order dated 3-3-98 directed enquiry and the file was accordingly handed over to the Registrar of the Court, who conducted the enquiry and submitted the report on 4-4-98. He opined that the averments made in paragraph No. 2 of the application for condonation of delay are definitely incorrect, and the averments made in paragraph No. 3 of the application are somewhat ambiguous because of the language used and the rest of the averments are correct.

6. Thus the short question for condoning the inordinate delay of 53 days is as to whether the appellants have shown sufficient cause and good cause which actually prevented them from filing the appeal in time.

7. Though ufficient cause or good cause is not defined under Sec. 2 of the Limitation Act but all the same it means and so far has been construed as beyond the control of the party seeki