B. N. Singh Neelam, J- This misc case is so filed in connection with MA (F) No.223 of 1998 so preferred by the petitioner/appellants Union of India making a prayer for condonation of delay of 890 days in preferring the appeal against the order dated 3.2.96 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Jorhat in Misc. (Arb) 89 of l994. 2. Heaid Mr. KK Mahanta, learned CGSC representing the petitioner/appellant. 3. All the points so taken as good grounds for condoning the delay are pressed into service. It is also submitted that delay in preferring the appeal is sufficiently explained and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in making delay in preferring the appeal rather the same could not be filed as the clearance for preferring the appeal was to betaken from different heads of the offices, the offices being located at different places and'matter had to pass through so many tables. It is also casually pointed out that even the petitioner has decided as to initiate departmental proceeding against the erreing personnel in not preferring the appeal in time. In support of this contention the prayer is that a liberal view be taken condoning the delay of 890 days. In this connection Mr. Mahanta, learned CGSC has banked upon 3 reported cases and they are 1995 (SuppI) 4 SCC 681, Punjab Small industries and Export Corporation Ltd & others vs. Union of India; AIR 1987 SC 1353 Naubat Ram Sarma vs. Addl District Judge II, Moradabad and AIR 1968 SC 222 , Sarpanch Lonand Grampanchayat vs. Ramgiri Gosavai & another. By referring to the reported cases it is pointed out that test for determining the sufficiency for not preferring the appeal is whether the factual statement made was probable and acceptable. It is pointed out that the factual statements so made in this condonation petition was very much probable which be accepted condoning the delay and that a liberal approach should be adopted. Mr. Mahanta further pointed out that the word sufficient cause as finding place in section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive liberal constlilction. 4 Mr. It is pointed out that the factual statements so made in this condonation petition was very much probable which be accepted condoning the delay and that a liberal approach should be adopted. Mr. Mahanta further pointed out that the word sufficient cause as finding place in section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive liberal constlilction. 4 Mr. AK Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel representing the other side has vehemently opposed considering prayer for condoning the delay of 890 days in preferring the appeal for which has submitted that no sufficient casue is shown, hence the prayer so made for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal be thus not considered. In this connection Mr Bahttacharyya learned senior counsel has referred to a reported case AIR 1996 SC 1623 State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani & others. He has also referred to page 7 paragraph XII of this misc case so preferred by the petitioner. It is submitted that since sufficient cause is not shown, the prayer for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal be thus not considered favourably. Appeal so preferred, it is further pointed out is hopelessly time barred and by condoning the delay when no sufficient cause is shown no step motherly treatment can be given to the present OP. 5. After hearing both sides lawyers, taking into consideration of the fact A and circumstances discussed above, also after going through the-reported cases so cited and in the background in the arguments so advanced by Mr. AK Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the OP/respondent we find much of strength in his argument so advanced. 6. Taking that view, the petition so filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal is thus not considered which is thus hereby rejected. Since the delay is not condoned in preferring the appeal no separate order need be passed in the main case. This misc case stands accordingly disposed of.