Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 4th March, 1989 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Gaya in Title Suit No. 53 of 1986. 2. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent for declaration that the order rescinding contract is illegal and without jurisdiction and the plaintiff is entitled to the damages and compensation with interest pendente lite and future till realisation and also for the cost of the suit. 3. The trial Court on consideration of the evidences decreed the suit in part on contest with costs. It was held by the trial Court that the plaintiff is further entitled for the interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 9% per annum fill the realisation and passed the decree for Rs. 71,013.00 which was directed to be deposited within four months from the date of the judgment. 4. This appeal has been filed on 21.8.1989. It is submitted that there is delay of 56 days in filing the appeal. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the said delay initially occurred due to delay in supply of the certified copy and later on account of collection of papers and getting opinion. 6. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the respondent in which it is contended that the said ground has been taken only for the purpose of condonation of delay and the same is the creation of the officials for getting the limitation condoned. According to the respondent, no suitable explanation much less sufficient cause has been shown by the appellants for condoning the delay. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that despite lapse of 16 years from the date of filing of the suit and success therein the decree holder has not been able to get the decree executed only on account of dillydallying tactics adopted by the appellants. 8. I find substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents. The certified copy of the judgment was delivered to the appellants much within the prescribed period of limitation. Even the opinion of the learned Advocate General was given before the expiry of the limitation. 8. I find substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents. The certified copy of the judgment was delivered to the appellants much within the prescribed period of limitation. Even the opinion of the learned Advocate General was given before the expiry of the limitation. Yet the appellants have delayed in filing the appear for which no justifiable explanation has been given except that the Counsel for the Biscomaun after going through the file asked for some relevant papers and others relevant file which were made available to him. It is stated that after examining all the relevant documents and concerned original file the appeal was drafted and filed on 21.8.1989. This, in my opinion, is no explanation at all even worth the name. After 3.6.89 when the learned Advocate General returned the life with his opinion, how the things moved and what led to causing of delay from time to time has not been stated at all. Only aforementioned vague and general statement has been made. 9. It appears that the State and/or its agencies considers that the delay shall be condoned and they are entitled for condonation of delay as a matter of course and in their case, law of limitation applies differently. 10. Only recently a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Puran Chandra Mahto reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 683 , was constrained to observe that the State Government appeared to be getting into a habit of proceeding in a very leisurely manner and routinely filing appeals, etc. after expiry of period of limitation without furnishing satisfactory explanation for delay. The Court also held that it is well settled that each days delay is to be explained showing sufficient cause and that, the State Government cannot be allowed to take advantage of Courts taking a liberal view in dealing with application for condonation of delay. 11. The plea of condonation of delay on account of internal movement of the file and seeking legal opinion has been held to be not good and valid grounds for condoning the delay by me in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Smt. Prabha Agarwal reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 918 . 12. 11. The plea of condonation of delay on account of internal movement of the file and seeking legal opinion has been held to be not good and valid grounds for condoning the delay by me in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Smt. Prabha Agarwal reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 918 . 12. The Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramchandran V/s. State of Kerala , has held that law of limitation may rarshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Court 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. 13. Under the said circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and the same is, accordingly, rejected Consequently the appeal is also dismissed barred by limitation.