Heard Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, R/W Section 173(1) proviso of MV Act has been filed praying for condonation of 167 days delay in preferring the appeal.

3. The reasons for delay has been stated in paragraph-2 of the petition, which is reproduced below:

“2. That the petitioner has states that papers had to be collected from advocate to Divisional Office and than to Regional Office, which took time and in view of huge amount involved, opinion of senior advocate was required to be obtained and all these took time and in doing so, the normal period of time to file an appeal expired and papers were ultimately sent to advocate on 08.01.2016 to file the appeal by engaging the senior advocate. But it was found that the certified copy of award was not available amongst the papers sent to him and just a photocopy of the same was available. The said fact was communicated to the regional office and thereafter the certified copy was applied before the Tribunal and was ultimately sent to the advocate on 06.05.2016 and he took some more time to finalise and settle the memo of appeal, stay petition etc. and thereafter appeal could be filed only on 12.05.2016 and by that time delay of 167 days had occurred. This delay is required to be condoned.”

4. The respondents by filing a counter affidavit vehemently objected the petition stating that the delay was indeed of 184 days and not of 167 days as stated in the petition. It has also been stated that the petitioner has not been able to show any cogent reason for the delay.

5. The cause shown as above, transpires that, judgment and award was passed on 17.08.2015 and the appellant allegedly sent necessary papers to its counsel on 08.01.2016 for filing appeal. It has been stated in a very casual and routine manner that in order to collect the documents from the advocate and obtaining opinion from the learned counsel the delay was caused. No cogent reason has been shown, why more than 4 months time was required just for handing over the brief to the learned counsel for filing the appeal. Nothing has been stated specifically, how much time was required for collecting the papers from the advocate or how much time was taken by the learned Sr. Counsel for giving opinion. After more than 4 months, when the papers were sent to the learned counsel on 08.01.2016, learned counsel discovered, that certified copy of the award was not there and only a photocopy of the award was sent. Then again the appellant took 4 months for obtaining certified copy and handing it over to the learned counsel. Nothing has been stated as to when the certified copy was applied or when it was made available. Simply a casual statement that the certified copy was applied and ultimately the same was sent to the learned counsel on 06.05.2016. Explaining the delay in such a lackadaisical manner by the appellant, in my view, can only be attributed to sheer negligence, or inaction or lack of bonafide on the part of the appellant. A litigant guilty of lack of bonafide and negligence or inaction cannot expect the indulgence of the court for filing an appeal or application beyond the prescribed period without showing sufficient cause.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that sufficient cause should be construed liberally considering that the appellant is a corporate body, dealing with public money and that a huge amount is involved in the matter. No doubt, sufficient cause has to be construed liberally, but that does not mean, that one is totally absolved from showing any cause for the delay. Procedural law are meant for advancement of justice and usually expected to be followed and certainly not for flouting. Anyone seeking exemption from the prescribed procedure laid down by the statute is certainly under obligation to assign good cause preventing him to follow the prescribed