C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) I. A. NO. 1470 of 2000 in an unregistered appeal filed under section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 227 days in preferring the appeal was allowed by the order under revision. The reason for the delay is said to be the loss or misplacement of the decree and judgment under appeal by the staff of the respondent i. e. , government of A. P. ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is the loss or misplacement of the certified copies of the judgment and decree is not and cannot be a good ground for condoning the inordianate delay of 227 days because fresh copy application could have been made for copies of judgment and decree. It is his contention that along with the suit, whose decree is sought to be appealed, the trial Court tried and disposed of three other suits, and petitioners filed seeking condonation of delay in preferring appeals against those decrees were dismissed by the same learned judge on the ground that delay was not properly explained, and so the present petition also should have been dismissed. It is his contention that the Court having observed that in matter relating to the State "the employees of the State for the reasons, which cannot be discussed here, and due to impersonal attitude neglect in taking appropriate and immediate steps in the cases" ought not to have condoned the delay when no proper explanation is given. ( 3 ) THE fact that there is possibility of taking another set of copies, when the copies of judgment and decree obtained earlier were misplaced may not be a ground for dismissing the petition for condonation of delay because question of obtaining another set of copies arises only when it is felt that there is no scope of recovering or re-tracing the misplaced copies. Usually, people who misplace the documents or files try to trace them and would not apply for fresh set of copies. Therefore, failure of the respondent in obtaining another set of certified copies of the decree and judgment may not be a ground for dismissal of the petition. Usually, people who misplace the documents or files try to trace them and would not apply for fresh set of copies. Therefore, failure of the respondent in obtaining another set of certified copies of the decree and judgment may not be a ground for dismissal of the petition. ( 4 ) THE observation of the learned judge extracted above has to be taken to mean that the respondent (Government) which can only act through human agency, may not be found fault with, for the delay caused by such human agency, for their own reasons. It is to be stated that the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Manager, Jain and Associates held that delay, when properly explained has to be condoned, when the party seeking condonation is the government. ( 5 ) I am unable to agree with the contention that since in some other similar matters, petitions for condonation of delay were dismissed, in this case also the court below ought to have dismissed the petition for condonation of delay, under Section 5 of Limitation Act, have to be decided on their own merits, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Merely because in a similar case the delay was not condoned it does not automatically mean that delay, which is properly explained in another case, should not be condoned. ( 6 ) IT is well known that when a court, in exercise of its discretion, condones delay, this court while exercising power of revision, should be slow in interfering with such discretion. Since, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order under revision, the revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Revision allowed.