M. Srinivasan, C. J. (Oral) :- The proposed appeal is barred by limitation and there is a delay of 77 days in presenting the appeal. This application for condonation of delay sets out the circumstances causing the delay in the following words: "That the counsel of the Appellants had to leave a few days early on 5.1.1997 for Ghaziabad for winter vacations. The Counsel directed his. Court Clerk Mr. Ramesh Kumar to keep track of when the Order would be passed and to have an application moved for certified copy when the order is finally passed. Due to bonafide mistake on the part of the Clerk, he failed to learned that the order was passed on 7.1.1996; a few days before the winter vacations. That after the vacations, on learning that the order has been passed, an application for the certified copy was moved-on 10.3.1997 that the clerk requested for and obtained a photocopy of the Order from the plaintiff Counsel on 11.3.1997. This copy was sent to the Appellants counsel at Delhi on 11.3.1997 for information. That the Clerk kept enquiring from the copying branch whether the certified, copy was ready, but failed to locate and receive the copy. The certified copy was received on 29.4.1997. It is submitted that the delay was due to bona fide mistake, in-advertent and it is prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned.

3. That on the basis of the photo copy of the order the Appellants Counsel at Delhi had an appeal prepared as per the instructions of the Appellants located at England. The delay in preparing appeal from 11.3.1997 till 30.4.1997 was due to time lest in communication between Delhi, England and Shimla, which was beyond the control of the Appellants."

2. A perusal of the above two paragraphs shows that there is no explanation for the delay as such. The averments are as vague as possible and there is no attempt to place before the Court how the delay is bona fide. The order was passed on 7.1.1997 and it is not in dispute that it was shown in the supplementary cause -list. Hence, on the day on which the order was passed, counsel on record had notice that the order would be passed on that date. There is no explanation as to why the counsel did not take note of the order and takes steps to file an application for copies. The last portion of the aforesaid paragraphs is also vague and it merely says that the delay in preparing appeal from 11.3.1997 till 30.4.1997 was due to time lost in communication between Delhi, England and Shimla. If the party is outside the country and interested in litigation, such party must take appropriate steps in time to comply with the provisions of Law, which govern the limitation for preferring an appeal. A party cannot claim a special privilege under the provisions of the Limitation Act Learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Ors. J. T. 1996(3) S.C. 1371. After referring to various decisions under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court said as follows:- "It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court - be it by private party, or the State -ye barred by limitation and this Court generally adogts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note- making, file-pushing, and passing -on the buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officer/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbe