Mir J: 1. While disposing of SWP No. 1500/97, a learned Single Bench of this Court passed a judgment on 09-02-1999. The respondent, writ petitioner, and the appellant herein, were both duly represented by their advocates on the date of disposal of the petition. The period of limitation for filing LPA expired on 10th of April, 1999. No appeal was preferred within limitation. An LPA however, was filed on 15-05-1999, alongwith the present CMP for condonation of delay. Obviously condonation of 34 days delay is prayed for. The ground taken in the CMP are as under:- 1. That the State received a communication from the Government Advocate on 12-04-1999. In that communication it was maintained that the court had passed a judgment on 24-02-1999. However, it was after rechecking that the State came to know of the exact date when the judgment was passed; 2. That the Department took decision of filing the appeal on 15-04-1999 and sanction was communicated on 24-04-1999. Appeal was prepared on 29-04-1999. As no certified copy of the judgment was received, till then, therefore, an application was filed for obtaining such a copy. Certified copy of the judgment was made available on 04-05-1999; 3. That the delay caused was neither intentional nor was willful. 2. Detailed objections to this CMP have been filed, wherein the grounds taken above have strongly been repelled and what has been projected by the respondent qua these grounds is as under:- i) That the Appellant-State has misrepresented the case before the Court and unsuccessfully tried to make out a case for condonation of delay. A copy of the judgment was before the respondents wherein date of the judgment was vividly indicated as 09-02-1999. To say that the State did not have the knowledge of the date of the judgment is quite erroneous because copy of the judgment was received by Mr. Yameen Qureashi, Special Secretary to Government on 18-02-1999 and marked by him on the same date. He had also referred the matter to the Government with a recommendation that the case of the petitioner-respondent should be considered in the light of the judgment; Mr. Yameen Qureshi in lieu of this favour had demanded an amount of Rs. 20000/- from the respondent as illegal gratification. He had also referred the matter to the Government with a recommendation that the case of the petitioner-respondent should be considered in the light of the judgment; Mr. Yameen Qureshi in lieu of this favour had demanded an amount of Rs. 20000/- from the respondent as illegal gratification. As the respondent could not oblige the officer, therefore, on 15-04-1999 he wrote a letter to the Government to grant sanction for filing of LPA "Sanction" by the Law Department was granted on 24-04-1999; ii) That no sufficient cause has been made out by the appellant-State for condonation of delay. A copy of the representation made by the respondent and court judgment, which respectively carry the receipt/endorsement and marking, have both been placed on record with the objections. This Court in view of the circumstances involved asked the appellant-State to file a supplementary affidavit. That has been done. The supplementary affidavit did not in anyway improve the case of the appellants. 3. The respondent, writ-petitioner, by leave of the Court, has filed a rejoinder to this supplementary affidavit. Alongwith this rejoinder a copy of detailed affidavit sworn in by Mr. Yameen Qureshi, also has been annexed. This affidavit was filed by Mr. Yameen Qureshi in response to a motion of contempt (COA-LPA-66/99), which was initiated for filing a wrong affidavit. A part of that affidavit needs to be reproduced here. It reads as under:- "That upon the receipt of the judgment dated 09-02-1999 the answering respondent immediately directed the concerned Under Secretary to Government and the Public Law Officer to process the case of the petitioner for being accorded consideration to the claim of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of Associate Professor. This fact is also admitted by the contempt petitioner in the contempt petition. The case of the petitioner was processed and sent for approval to the Honble Minister for Health and Medical Education Department. The Honble Minister for Medical Education has directed to put up the file of the petitioner after the post of Associate Professor is available in the ENT Department in Government Medical College Jammu or in Government Medical College Srinagar. The case of the petitioner has become stagnant due to the non-availability of the post Associate Professor in the Department of ENT and could not be processed further despite the best efforts of the answering respondents. The case of the petitioner has become stagnant due to the non-availability of the post Associate Professor in the Department of ENT and could not be processed further despite the best efforts of the answering respondents. As soon as the post of Associate Professor in ENT Department is available the case of the petitioner, will be positively considered in terms of the judgment/order of the Honble Court dated 09-02-1999. The Honble Court will appreciate that the answering respondent cannot be faulted at all for the alleged noncompliance of the judgment/order dated 09-02-1999. This being so the present contempt petition deserves out right dismissal. 4. Thus the material placed on record by the parties in this CMP reveals the following facts :- 1. That up to 15-04-1999 no steps were taken by the appellants to file an appeal, Copy of the judgment was received by the appellants on 18-02-1999 and it was marked by the officer on 18-02-1999 itself. The affidavit of the officer, which has been reproduced above, shows that case of the writ petitioner was submitted to the Minister concerned who asked the Department to put up the case before him as and when a post of Associate Professor becomes available. Mr. Yameen Qureshi has also deposed that despite best efforts, the petitioner could not be promoted because of non availability of post. He also assures that the writ petitioner would be considered in terms of the judgment dated 09-02-1999, as and when post becomes available. 2. That it was only on 15-04-1999 when the limitation period had expired that communication No. MG(G-|H-I-714) 157/89 was addressed by Mr. Yameen Qureshi to the Law Department for obtaining what is called sanction. By that time the case of the petitioner had already been referred to the Government and the Minister Incharge had taken up the final decision of promoting the writ petitioner on a post being available. It is worthwhile to mention here that under law the Government did not require any sanction from the Law Department. It could at best obtain an opinion from the concerned Department, as to whether or not an appeal should have been filed. That could have been done at the time when copy of the judgment was received and not much after the expiry of period of limitation; 3. That application for grant of a certified copy has been made on 30-04-1999. That could have been done at the time when copy of the judgment was received and not much after the expiry of period of limitation; 3. That application for grant of a certified copy has been made on 30-04-1999. Stamps were deposited on 04-05-1999 and on the same date copy was supplied. This is revealed by the copy of the judgment enclosed with the LPA itself and admitted in para 6 of the CMP; 4. That the appellants took decision of filing the appeal on 26-04-1999 when the Additional Advocate General was approached. The appeal, as is reflected by para 4 of the CMP, was prepared on 29-04-1999; 5. The CMP does not detail out any reason as to why the application for the certified copy was not made before 30-04-1999 when the appellants, much before that, were in know of the judgment; 6. The inability of the appellants to file application before 30-04-1999 shows that the State was busy in exploring the possibility of executing the judgment of the court. This is fully admitted by Mr. Yameen Qureshi; 7. The two inconsistent stands demonstrated by Mr. Yameen Qureshi, Addl. Secretary, reflect an inexplicable human conduct, which has not been accounted for. The case of the respondent is that the somersault was the result of the inability to arrange for money demanded by way of illegal gratification. However, we refrain from commenting upon the merits of the allegations at this stage; 8. The appellants in their CMP do not explain as to why did they not decide to file an appeal before 1-04-1999; 9. Appellants also do not explain as to wherefrom did they expect to get a certified copy of the judgment without applying for it. The law of limitation has a purpose to serve. It restricts the right of appeal of an aggrieved party by laying down a specific period of limitation for filing such appeals. Once that period is over, the party in whose favour the judgment goes, accrues a right of reaping the fruit of the judgment. To the accrual of such a right, the only exception is that there should be a good cause which must have prevented the appellant from filing appeal within time. The term "cause" has intentionally been preceded by the adjectual term "good". To the accrual of such a right, the only exception is that there should be a good cause which must have prevented the appellant from filing appeal within time. The term "cause" has intentionally been preceded by the adjectual term "good". Thus the scheme of Rule 50 (ii) of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999, is not different from one envisaged in terms of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The rule has been devised with the paramount object that the court condoning the delay must be satisfied of existence of a good cause. Here in the present case the court has not been taken into confidence as to why was the decision of filing appeal taken at such a belated stage and why did the State sleep from 09-02-1999 to 30-04-1999, in filing an application for getting a certified copy of the judgment. The copying section of this court did not lose time. Copy was delivered as soon as fee in the form of stamp duty was deposited. The general principle that the time taken in obtaining copy must be excluded in this case, does not mean to help the appellants, because of there being no explanation for not filing application for obtaining copy from the date of the judgment or atleast from 18-02-1999 when a xerox copy of the same was received. Besides no explanation is given for not filing the appeal within there. 5. Mr. Kapoor. AAG, argued that the Government Advocate had not sent any certified copy to the Government, therefore, the delay should be condoned. In this behalf he tried to rely upon a judgment of the apex court delivered in case, State of Haryana Vs. Chandermani and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1623. We have registered the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in this judgment. Their Lordships took into account the impersonal and corporate composition of the State hierarchy. Their Lordships also took notice of the working pattern of different rungs of the Government machinery and the snail space with which the files move. The Supreme Court in considerably guarded words held that "certain amount of latitude is not impermissible". This latitude was held to be permissible only because the State represents collective cause of the community. Their Lordships also took notice of the working pattern of different rungs of the Government machinery and the snail space with which the files move. The Supreme Court in considerably guarded words held that "certain amount of latitude is not impermissible". This latitude was held to be permissible only because the State represents collective cause of the community. To be more precise, their lordships in this case also were motivated by the same principle of doing substantial justice, where it is pitted against procedural wranglings, as laiddown in the celebrated case, State of J&K Vs. Mst. Khatji, reported in AJR 1987 Sc 1353. 6. The above statement of law, laid down by the apex court, does not mean that in all the appeals filed by the State delay should be condoned, irrespective of the fact whether or not sufficient cause is made out. In case the concept of laxity, as permitted in Chandramanis case, supra, is protracted beyond its limits, it will put the law of limitation against the State to negation. State is as good a litigant as may other private party and equal treatment to all litigants must be given. However, where the court feels that because of inaction of the State machinery, State coffers are put to peril, courts may use their discretion in favour of the State. 7. In the present case, no such consideration is at work. The matter relates to legal right of an employee which has been adjudicated upon by the learned Single Bench. The Appellant State, as already observed, have taken all steps to see that the judgment is implemented. The Minister has cleared the matter and asked for its execution. All of a sudden a U turn is taken much after the expiry of period of limitation and petition for condonation of delay is filed. 8. Their lordships of the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with an application for condonation of delay filed by the State in a case titled P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and another, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276. In this case the High Court had condoned the delay. The Apex Court, noticed that the High Court had not recorded any satisfaction that the explanation for delay was either reasonable or satisfactory. Such explanation, according to their lordships, was an essential pre-requisite for condonation of delay. State of Kerala and another, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276. In this case the High Court had condoned the delay. The Apex Court, noticed that the High Court had not recorded any satisfaction that the explanation for delay was either reasonable or satisfactory. Such explanation, according to their lordships, was an essential pre-requisite for condonation of delay. Their lordships referring to application of law of limitation held as under:- "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the courts 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. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs". Applying the above principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court to the facts of this case, where there is absolutely no explanation for not taking appropriate steps within the time prescribe, we are of the considered view that the CMP makes out no sufficient or good cause for condonation of delay. 9. Yet there is another argument which needs a digression. "Sufficient cause" which is required to be established before this court, must be relatable to the period prior to the period of limitation. The events or circumstances arising after expiry of limitation can, in no case, constitute such sufficient cause. The proposition of law was laid down by the Supreme Court in case titled Ajit Singh Thakur Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1081 SC 733. In this case initially the State Government took decision not to file an appeal and it allowed the period of limitation to lapse. Subsequently however, the Government made up its mind to file an appeal. This however, was done on some observations made by the High Court in a revision matter. Their lordships came down heavily and dismissed the condonation application with the following observations :- "Now it is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. This however, was done on some observations made by the High Court in a revision matter. Their lordships came down heavily and dismissed the condonation application with the following observations :- "Now it is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired, it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events of circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire, without the appeal being filed, must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. In the present case, there was no such cause, and the High Court erred in condoning the delay". Present case is a spectacle of mute and unexplained inaction of the State Government not to file the appeal within the period of limitation. The attempt to make out a good or sufficient cause, after expiry of limitation, is futile. Therefore, also the CMP, must fail. Thus, where the State, during the period of limitation was busy in making efforts to execute the judgment, they will be deemed to have accepted the same. After the expiry of such period, the State cannot turn round and ask for condonation of delay simply on the ground that they did not get certified copy. Getting of certified copy is a step towards the filing of appeal. It is for the State to obtain such copies, if they choose to file the appeal. Besides, appeals can also be filed, after seeking leave of the court for dispensing with filing of such copy. Where neither of the things is done and on the other hand the case of executing the judgment is referred and finally a decision is taken in this behalf, the Court cannot come to a finding that sufficient/good cause prevented the party from filing an appeal within time. Courts have to discharge the onerous duty of doing justice. This can be done only by weighing the case of the parties on the scales of set standard/proof. Courts have to discharge the onerous duty of doing justice. This can be done only by weighing the case of the parties on the scales of set standard/proof. Where no sufficient/good cause is established, courts should not condone delay on whims and carprices of the defaulting party. We accordingly find no merit in this CMP and dismiss the same, the dismissal has the effect of dismissing the appeal also. No order as to costs. Let the contempt petition come up before the Court on a date to be fixed by Registrar Judicial.