1. Delay of sixty-nine days attributed to the interse departmental consideration deserves to be viewed seriously. Pre condition for condonation is the satisfaction to be recorded about "Sufficient Cause". It is no more res Integra that "Sufficient Cause" has to be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice. Liberal construction is not unfettered. Absolute indolence, if noticed, dis-entitles the seeker from claiming the concession of condonation. Law of limitation may harshly affect a party, but has to be applied with all force, on the asking, delay cannot be condoned. The "Sufficient Cause" projected in the application attributed to the administrative decisions is total casual while having over all view of the matter in hand if delay is condoned the indolent seekers of condonation will get encouraged prolongation of the final determination of the cases will get boosted, resultantly proverb justice delayed justice denied will get a front seat, for condoning the delay every case has to be considered in the peculiar facts and features.

2. In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, AIR 2002 SC 1201 the Apex Court has observed as follows:

"Acceptance of explanation furnished is the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona-fide can be imputed to the defaulting party.

........................ However, by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and /or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merits."

The observation made by the Rajasthan High Court in Urban Improvement Trust v. Poonam Chand, AIR 1997 Rajasthan 134 deserves mention in this regard. The relevant observation is a follows: -

"Now it must be taken to be well settled principle of law that before rejecting applications under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and dismissing appeals as barred by lapse of time, the courts of law are required to put a glance as a condition precedent on the merits of the appeals and unless the appeals are found to be hopelessly devoid of merits ordinarily efforts should be made to decide the appeals on merit."

3. For appreciating the matter in its right perspective in keeping with the principles laid down precise noticing of factual aspect of the case is indispensable so as to show the negligent attitude of the petitioner all along in the proceedings right from the Trial Court to First Appellate Court.

4. Basically respondent a retired Works Supervisor of the petitioner department, has filed a suit for declaration before the Court of City Judge, Srinagar in the year 1996 to the effect that the corrigendum bearing no. CE-52/2426-50 dated 15.6.1996 issued by the Chief Engineer Kashmir Irrigation and Flood Control Department may be declared null and void. According to this corrigendum the grade of Rs. 1600-2600 as granted to the respondent vide no. 34-E of 1993-94 dated 22.7.1993 and issued under GE no. 52/6582-87 dated 22.7.1993 has been ordered to be read as grade of Rs. 1400-2600. During the proceedings of the suit before the Court of City Judge petitioners (defendants) had chosen to remain absent, therefore, trial of the suit culminated in exparte decree where under corrigendum above referred stand declared null and void. Decision bearing no. 34-E of 1993-94 dated 22.7.1993 pay scale was ordered to be given effect and arrears to be paid to the respondent, plaintiff.

5. The petitioners seem to have filed an application under Order 9Rule 13of CPC for setting aside the exparte decree and judgment dated 4.4.2000. The application so filed has been dismissed vide detailed order dated 29.12.2003. Aggrieved thereof, appeal has been preferred, which got dismissed in default on 8.5.2006. For re-admission of the appeal a composite application for restoration as well as for condonation of delay has been filed on 12.9.2006 but dismissed vide detailed order passed by the appellate Court (3rd Addl. District Judge, Srinagar) vide its order dated 15.11.2006. After sleeping over the matter from 15.11.2606 upto 26.04.2007, a decision has been taken for filing the revision petition. As per Rule 59 of the High Court Rules, period of limitation prescribed for filing the revision petition is ninety days, whereas, the revision petition has been preferred after 159 days, so delay of sixty nine days. It is quite horrifying and strange that the petitioners who were the appellants before the Appellate Court have chosen to remain silent for a long period, thereafter, appeared to have woke up from deep slumbers to the dismay of the respondent as it is he who is the worst sufferer. He has started this legal battle in the year 1996 and has remained with it for one decade.

6. The negligence in pursing the proceedings right from the institution of the suit as detailed above is quite obvious. Indolence has a limit. The indolence exhibited is beyond proportions, so as to persuade the court to decline the motion for condition, it shall be travesty of the justice to make the respondent to suffer any further, it shall be quite relevant to quote para - 7 of the judgment reported in AIR 1998 SC page 2276:

"Law of Limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was thus, neither proper nor judicious."

7. Analyzing the factual and meritorious aspect of the litigation the casual non-specific cause projected for condonation is un-acceptable. Hence motion for condonation is found devoid of force, is dismissed. Resultantly, revision petition is, dismissed as bared by limitation.

8. Copy of the order alongwith record be sent back.