There is a delay of 141 days in filing the appeal. It is stated that the judgment was delivered by the learned District Judge, Bhaderwah on 24-07-2002 and the applicants came to know about this judgment when received notice in an execution application on 23-12-2002 at New Delhi. It is further stated that copies were applied on 29-01-2003. The applicants/appellants further explained intervening period between 23rd December, 2002 to 29th January, 2003 as utilized in ascertaining the facts with regard to exparte proceedings taken against them. That after collecting the record from various places, the same was handed over along with certified copies of the judgment and decree to the Central Government Standing Counsel in preparing the appeal, who filed it on 20-03-2003. 2. The respondents, on the other hand, in their objections submitted that the notice of the appeal filed before the District Judge, Bhaderwaha was served on the applicants herein, but only SDM, Bhaderwah caused his appearance and contested the appeal filed by the non-applicant herein. That the applicants have not been able to explain the delay from 23-12-2002 up to 29-01-2003 when applied for certified copies, as to how the above period was utilized.That the application for condonation of delay is neither bonafide nor the delay has been explained satisfactorily and, thus, stated to be not legally sustainable. 3. On the scrutiny of the record, it is found that the certified copies are received by the applicants on 4th February, 2003, whereas the application for condonation of delay along with appeal has been filed on 20-03-2003. There is no explanation given by the applicants as to how the period from 23-12-2002 to 29-01-2003 was utilized. The circumstances recited in the application, by which the applicants/appellants were prevented from filing the appeal within time, are neither sufficient nor satisfactory. Even after obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree on 04-02-2003, the condonation application along with appeal has been filed on 20-03-2003. There is no explanation given for the period between 04-02-2003 and 20-03-2003. Before granting condonation of delay, it is imperative for the court to record satisfaction that explanation tendered by the applicants for the delay in filing the appeal is reasonable and satisfactory, which is essential pre-requisite to the condonation of delay. The discretion to be exercised by the Court has to be either proper or judicious in condoning the delay. 4. Before granting condonation of delay, it is imperative for the court to record satisfaction that explanation tendered by the applicants for the delay in filing the appeal is reasonable and satisfactory, which is essential pre-requisite to the condonation of delay. The discretion to be exercised by the Court has to be either proper or judicious in condoning the delay. 4. The Apex Court in Judgment Today 1998 Vol.7 SC 21 has observed that the period of limitation cannot be extended and delay condoned only on equitable grounds. Where sufficient cause is not shown, delay cannot be condoned. It is further observed where limitation is allowed to be passed without taking proper care, the explanation must be for the period pertaining to the date of limitation. The Supreme Court, in a judgment reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276, has observed 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." 5. From the facts and circumstances delineated herein above from the record, no cause, much less sufficient cause, is shown for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The application to condone the delay is accordingly dismissed and the Civil Second Appeal, as such, is barred by limitations, as a consequence thereof, also stands dismissed.