Judgment 1. This is an application (I.A.No. 11217 of 1999) for condoning the delay in filing this appeal. 2. The appeal arises from the judgment and decree in a matrimonial case filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. The judgment under appeal was passed on 11th September, 1998. Formal decree was drawn up on 18th September, 1998. The appellants filed this appeal on 14th October, 1998 annexing the certified copy of the judgment but not the decree. Later, pursuant to the order passed by a Bench of this court on 18th March, 1999 the certified copy of the decree was filed on 3rd April, 1999. 3. The plea taken in the application for condonation of delay is that during the intervening period there was strike of the non-gazetted employees in the Civil Courts and in the circumstances the appellants could not obtain the certified copy. The strike is said to have commenced in November, 1998. But as stated above, the certified copy of the decree had been drawn up on 18th September 1998. If the appellants could apply for certified copy of the judgment on 14th September 1999 (which they did), it is not undersandable why they could not make a similar application in respect of the decree soon after it was prepared in the month of September, 1998 itself. 4. That apart, the more serious aspect of the matter is that the respondents have denied the very assertion of the appellants that the working of the offices in the Civil Courts at Sasaram was paralysed on account of the non-gazetted employees strike in the month of November, 1998. In support of the contention, counsel for the respondent produced the certified copy of the decree which was supplied to the plaintiff respondent on 21st November, 1998. If the respondent could apply and obtain the certified copy of the decree in November, 1998, the appellants case that they were prevented from obtaining the same on account of the ongoing non-gazetted employees strike cannot be accepted and the plea, therefore, must be rejected as false. 5. Though this court is rather liberal in condoning delay in preferring appeals which are provided as of right, where the party approaches the court with false plea i.e. with unclean hands, the consideration may not be the same. 5. Though this court is rather liberal in condoning delay in preferring appeals which are provided as of right, where the party approaches the court with false plea i.e. with unclean hands, the consideration may not be the same. Once the conclusion is reached that the plea of the appellants is false, it is difficult to grant the relief of condonation of delay which is discretionary in nature. In the above premises, I.A. No.11217 of 1999 is rejected and consequently, the appeal is dismissed as time barred.