Honble YADAV, J.–The instant first appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed on 9.5.1995 beyond 93 days alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act supported with an affidavit. (2). I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the application moved under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is evident from perusal of the application that no facts are disclosed in chronological order as on which date the judgment was delivered, on which date decree was prepared, on which date the certified copy for the judgment was applied, on which date the certified copy was ready in copying department and on which date it was received by the appellants counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Punglia invited my attention towards the paragraph 6 of the application wherein it is said that relevant papers were sent to Advocate, Shri Roshan Lal Gupta. In the paragraph 6 nowhere it is averred that when certified copy of the judgment and decree was applied, on which date it was prepared in copying department and when it was delivered to the appellant. Limitation is to be computed from the date of prepara- tion of certified copy of the judgment and decree from copying department after excluding the time taken in obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree, not from the date of sending record to the counsel of the appellant. The averments made in paragraph 6 of the application do not inspire my confidence. (3). Learned counsel for the appellant stated that in the penultimate line of paragraph 6 of the application it is stated that the judgment and decree was sent to the Regional Office for necessary approval to file the appeal. Suffice it to say in this regard that no date is mentioned in the penultimate paragraph 6 of the application that on which date judgment and decree was sent from the Branch Office to the Regional Office for the approval to file the present appeal. I am not sa- tisfied with the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and, the reasons disclosed in the said application and affidavit are not sufficient to condone the delay of 93 days. (4). I am not sa- tisfied with the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and, the reasons disclosed in the said application and affidavit are not sufficient to condone the delay of 93 days. (4). In the last I put a glance on the merits of the appeal so that the appellant may not have a lurking doubt in his mind that he has been non suited only on tech- nical ground of limitation. From the perusal of the judgment under appeal it is apparent that the present suit for recovery was filed beyond limitation. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on question of limitation is eminently just and proper. The present appeal is hopelessly devoid of merits. (5). The facts of this appeal are such that the defendant/respondent should not be exposed to this time barred appeal on merits. The vested right accrued to him after expiry of limitation in filing the present appeal would become an empty formality if the present time barred appeal is entertained which is hopelessly devoid of merits. To my mind accrual of right after expiry of limitation to the defendant/respondent without remedy would become illusory if delay is condoned in the present appeal which is hopelessly devoid of merits. (6). In view of what has been discussed above, the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 93 days is hereby rejected and the present appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation.