Judgment 1. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the grounds stated in the petition for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The petition for condonation of delay shall, therefore, stand allowed and the delay in filing the appeal shall stand condoned. 2. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute. No costs. 3. By this Letters Patent Appeal by invocation of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge recorded in C.W.J.C. No. 8683 of 2005 dated 23.9.2005, whereby, the respondents petition came to be granted, inter alia, holding that the appellant is not entitled for the recovery in absence of any written instrument or consent order. 4. The same ground is reiterated before us. The contention raised before us has been that the respondent as an employee of the appellant Co-operative Bank committed defalcation in respect of a sum of Rs. 3,19,276/- during the course of his service. That amount was sought to be recovered under the provisions of the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. The respondent by filing the aforesaid writ application questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by the appellant which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, hence this Letters Patent Appeal before us. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have, also, examined and evaluated the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, whereby, the impugned action of recovery is not upheld while allowing the writ petition filed by the original petitioner, respondent herein. We have, also, considered the relevant provisions of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, as well as, the relevant provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. 6. It is noticed by us that the action of the appellant for the recovery of the alleged amount of defalcation under the provisions of the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act cannot be justified in absence of any due and payable amount to the Bank in terms of the provision of the agreement or under the provisions of the aforesaid Acts. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in latter part in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment are quite weighty and cannot be dislodged in course of the submissions before us. 7. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in latter part in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment are quite weighty and cannot be dislodged in course of the submissions before us. 7. A certificate proceeding contem-plated under law proceeded on the premise that there is money due and payable either in terms of the agreement or contract or under the provisions of law. Mere an allegation of the Bank with regard to the defalcation by the employee in course of the period of his service would not tantamount "Ipso Facto" that the amount due was legally payable to the Bank by the person against whom such allegations are made. It is in this context, there would not arise any question of grant of a certificate and resultant recovery thereof under the provisions of the said Acts. 8. This Court in M/s Murlidhar Sohanlal vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 1998(3) Patna Law Journal Reports 526, had an occasion to deal with similar situation and upon evaluation of the relevant provisions of law and similar facts situation has held that the Corporation, in the present case Bank, can avail the remedy of certificate proceeding treating it to be a public demand provided the person liable to pay the same has agreed by a written instrument that it shall be recoverable as a public demand. Apart from the fact that there is no such agreement and there is mere allegation of defalcation of the aforesaid amount by the employee of the Bank, the proposition of law enunciated in the said judgment in the said case by this Court, after examining and appreciating the provision of Section 9 read with Item No. 15 of Schedule l of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, would directly cover the facts of the present case and, therefore, the appeal on hand is without any substance and merit and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 9. Accordingly, this appeal shall stand dismissed with costs.