JUDGMENT :

1. This application is filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 333 days in filing the application for seeking leave to prefer an appeal and criminal appeal before this Court.

2. It is the case of the complainant that complainant is a co-operative bank, at present under liquidation has filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan bearing criminal case No.2223/2010, wherein the learned Trial Court has passed a judgment and order of acquittal on the ground that the complainant fails to establish legally enforceable debt against which the application for seeking leave to prefer an appeal and appeal is filed alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay of 333 days.

3. It is considered by the learned Advocate in the application that after liquidation management of the respondent-bank was changed and some problems of funds arose, therefore the applicant could not approach to this Court in time. It is further contended in the application that delay is not deliberate or intentional, but in absence of the knowledge the delay has occurred in challenging the judgment and order of the acquittal dated 10-07-2018.

4. The aforesaid application was opposed by the respondent No.2 and has filed the affidavit stating that bank was in a liquidation way back from 19-12-2009 and applicant was represented by the Advocate before Lower Court and he was aware about the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 10-07-2018, when the order was pronounced in the open Court, endorsement of “Seen” and signature was made by the Advocate on that day. Learned Advocate submits that delay of each day is to be explained and merely sympathetically or on consideration of economic constraint or financial difficulty would not be a ground to condone the delay for a long period. It is contended by the respondent No.2 that on facts set forth in the application supported by the affidavit, no cause much less sufficient for not preferring the appeal within a prescribed period of limitation is explained and therefore application for condonation of delay may not be allowed.

5. Against the aforesaid reply, rejoinder was filed by the applicant wherein it is contended that Advocate of the applicant was facing some personal problems and therefore he did not appear before the learned Trial Court at the time of argument. The proxy Advocate Ms.Mittal S.Sandesara had filed an application below Exh.114 for granting time to submit a written arguments on 03-07-2018 which was rejected by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter the proxy Advocate has filed an application before the learned Trial Court below Exh.115 on 07-07-2018 stating that revision application is preferred by the applicant before the learned Sessions Court against the order passed below Exh.112, which was also rejected by the learned Trial Court and pronounced the final judgment on 10-07-2018 in the presence of proxy Advocate.

5.1. An additional affidavit was filed by the learned Advocate for the applicant stating that the colleague of the pleader who was representing before the learned Trial Court has made an endorsement “Seen” on the judgment without knowledge of the learned advocate of the present applicant. It is further contended that applicant was not informed, because the learned advocate at the Trial Court stuck due to his personal reasons applicant was not informed in proper time. The required permission to approach before this Court by filing the caption appeal was obtained and thereafter the appeal was preferred.

5.2. One more affidavit is filed by the learned Advocate of the applicant, producing the documents of resolution which was passed by the appellant bank on 14-09-2010 wherein the power has been given to Jagdishbhai Joravarsingh Rana for initiating the proceedings against the loan defaulters which was the part of the criminal case No.2223 of 2010 below Exh.44.

5.3. Thereafter at page 26 one more affidavit is filed by the administrator