JUDGMENT 1. The counsel for appellant prays for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. 2. Shri Pandey submitted that the Bank had instructed the counsel to file the appeal before the vacation started, but on account of mistake of calculation on the part of the advocate, the appeal - could not be filed in the Court within time. He pointed out the affidavits of two advocates who were dealing with this matter - before filing of this appeal. He pointed out that both the adovcates have stated on solemn affirmation that on account of mistake on their part in calculating the period of limitation, there has been delay in filing this appeal. He submitted that the delay be condoned. 3. Shri L.P. Bhargava submitted that the matter is not so innocent as it is being shown. He pointed out that the impugned decree was passed on 20.1.1996, however, the application for certified copy of impugned judgment and decree was submitted on 21.1.1996. Shri Bhargava further pointed out that thereafter the decision was to be taken by the Bank as to whether the appeal is to be filed or not. He further pointed out that the Bank is equipped with legal advisors and, therefore, the plea of mistake of calculation on the part of the advocates cannot be helpful to the appellant for the purpose of praying for condonation of the delay. 4. While considering the delay condonation application, the Court has to be circumspect of the surrounding circumstances. By such defaults, the party in whose favour decree has been passed acquires a legal right of executing such decree. If the appellant is negligent and not preferring the appeal against such decree within time, he is obliged to explain the delay satisfactorily. Delay of every day has to be explained in satisfactory way. A right which such decree holder acquires cannot be ignored and brushed aside lightly. The Court has to give due attention to such application and to find out whether delay has been satisfactorily explained or not. 5. The Banks, such other institutions and corporations cannot be equated with the laymen and the villagers. Because, Banks, such institutions and corporations are equipped with legal advisors. Some of them are having a legal cell to deal with such matters. 5. The Banks, such other institutions and corporations cannot be equated with the laymen and the villagers. Because, Banks, such institutions and corporations are equipped with legal advisors. Some of them are having a legal cell to deal with such matters. When Banks, such institutions and corporations are entrusted with the duty of safeguarding the public funds, releasing the public funds properly, they are expected to be more diligent on their part. Lethargy and red-tapism has no place in the affairs of Banks, such institutions and corporations as well as public bodies entrusted with duty rendering service to the public. The tendency is increasing to take the advantage of the ground of mistakes on the part of advocates in calculation of the period of limitation. But there has to be a limit to it. An advocate who happens to be a junior advocate may commit such mistakes in calculating the period of limitation on account of lack of knowledge and experience at the Bar. But if he happens to be an advocate with some years of experience at Bar of conducting trials and proceedings, such ground will have to be considered with different criteria. It is true that the party should not suffer on account of mistakes committed by his advocate. That may be applicable to laymen and the villagers in majority of cases. It is true that mistakes are committed by human beings but each case will have to be examined carefully. The advocates and parties cannot be permitted to make the capital of the ground of such mistakes in the circumstances of the matter indicate otherwise. Banks, corporations, such institutions and Government machinery cannot be permitted to rest solely and frequently on such grounds for the purpose of praying for condonation of delay as a rule. If their officers are blamable for a negligence, utter negligence, total carelessness then the criteria would be different. The delay condonation applications in such cases will have to be dismissed if the grounds shown are not satisfactory. This satisfaction indicates reasonable scrutiny based on reasons. The persons working in public field and entrusted with a duty towards public and public funds cannot afford to be negligent in their duty. Now the time has come that there should be a message of alertness amongst all of them for securing public service and safety of public funds in real spirit. 6. The persons working in public field and entrusted with a duty towards public and public funds cannot afford to be negligent in their duty. Now the time has come that there should be a message of alertness amongst all of them for securing public service and safety of public funds in real spirit. 6. Thus, after careful scrutiny of the material which has been placed before me in this case, I come to the conclusion that delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Thus, the delay condonation application stands dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.