JUDGMENT 1. - This case has come-up on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of the State for condonation of the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit of Mr. M.K. Vyas - the Officer Incharge in the case. 2. The ground on which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay is that the date of the decision was not communicated to the Officer Incharge by the Government Advocate well in time and as soon as the petitioner-respondent Amara Meena approached the appellant-petitioner and showed the certified copy of the decision, he enquired the matter and came to know that the case has already been decided. He thereafter moved an application on 17.10.94 for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and obtained the same on 17.10.94. The certified copy was, thereafter, sent for comments on 22.10.94 and the appeal was filed on 11.11.94. 3. The writ petition was heard and decided in the presence of the Government Advocate. No affidavit of any officer of the Government Advocate Office has been filed to show that the result of the writ petition was not communicated to the concerned officer. The application for grant of certified copy has been moved much after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal, which speaks about the negligence on the part of the appellant-petitioners. They cannot be said to be diligent in any manner in prosecuting the case. The writ petition was decided in the presence of the Government Advocate on 25.5.94 but the application for grant of certified copy was moved on 27.9.94. The sanction in the present case was accorded on 25.10.94 and the same was received in the Office of the Government Advocate on 26.10.94 but still the appeal was filed after fifteen days thereof. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. As no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, tiled by the appellant-petitioners, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 4. As no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, tiled by the appellant-petitioners, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 4. In the result, we do not find any merit in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant-petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed. The special appeal, filed by the State, which is barred by 145 days, is, also, dismissed being barred by time.Petition dismissed. *******