Condonation of delay requires a plausible explanation; in this case, the delay was deemed insufficient under the Commercial Court Act.

1. Heard on I.A. No. 02 of 2018 i.e. application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The instant appeal filed by the State is delayed by a period of 11 months though the particulars have not been stated in the application.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant / State would submit that initially the order was passed by the learned Commercial Court, Raipur on 30.08.2017 and thereafter the certified copy was applied immediately in the month of September, 2017. Thereafter, it was forwarded to get the permission from the respective departments to file the appeal. She would further submit that the department in turn forwarded it to the law department and the law department thereafter accorded permission in the month of November, 2017, to file the appeal. She would submit that subsequent thereto the documents which were scattered in the Commercial Court and different departments were collected, which took some time, consequently the delay was caused. She referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others reported in 1996 (3) SCC 132 : (AIR 1996 SC 1623) and would submit that since, it is a matter of government department different procedural aspects and sanctions are required to take any further action / step according to the hierarchy of working. Consequently, it can be inferred that bona fide delay has been occurred. She further submits that the expression "explaining sufficient cause" may be considered liberally while dealing in commercial court matters and accordingly the delay of 11 months may be condoned.

3. Per contra, Shri V. K. Rao, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Ajay Mishra would submit that the initial dispute started in June, 1989. Taking the facts as it is, he submits that the application for condonation of delay contains no plausible explanation for delay. He would submit that the delay of more than 11 months have been caused in filing the appeal and in taking the situation in between the period i.e. 22.11.2017 on which permission is said to be accorded by the law department and filing of the appeal on 11.09.2018 no plausible, bona fide explanation has been given. Consequently, the application under S.5 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal deserves to be dismissed summarily.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on application for condonation of delay. The issue emerges out from a litigation under the Commercial Court Act , 2015. In order to evaluate the reasons which have been assigned, we deem it proper to travel to the object of the Commercial Court Act , 2015. The object of promulgation of the legislation of the Commercial Court Act , 2015 was to provide the speedy disposal of the high level commercial disputes, therefore, the need was felt to provide for an independent mechanism for their early resolution, so that the early resolution of commercial dispute shall create a positive image to the investors of world about the independent and responsive Indian legal system. Consequently, the Law Commission of India in its 188th Report had recommended the constitution of Commercial Division in each High Court. Accordingly, Commercial Division of High Courts Bill, 2009 was introduced and passed by the Lok Sabha. Reading of the Act would show that the under line object was for disposal of the commercial disputes, as early as possible, which would in turn reflect the image of ease of business in India. Therefore, in these backgrounds what are the reasons assi