JUDGMENT Tej Shankar, J. 1. Counsel heard. 2. There is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The ground alleged is that the appeal had to be filed upto 3.9.1993, but the lawyers were on strike from 19.8.1993 to 21.9.1993 and as such, the appeal could not be filed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent contested the application and argued that the appeal could have been filed, because the Registry of the High Court was working. There is no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed. 4. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel before me. The mere fact that the lawyers were on strike cannot be said to be sufficient ground for not filing the appeal within time. The learned Counsel could have prepared the appeal at home and sent the memorandum for filing it through his client, i.e., the party. The party should have brought and filed it with the Registry. The Registry was functioning. There is, therefore, absolutely no ground for not filing the appeal within time. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, rejected and the appeal is dismissed as barred by time.