This is an application filed by the Union of India in its Army Administration for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, the period for condonation spanning over a period of 145 days. 2. The judgment sought to be brought under appeal refers to the grant of disability pension to an erstwhile soldier. 3. The number of days for which the delay occurred is hardly these days a good ground for refusing to entertain the appeal or for refusing to condone the delay. File pushing problems are as much there in the other departments of the Government as in the Army. 4. According to the present trend and the law the Court favours condonation of delay when the appeal is bona fide filed but it refuses to condone the delay when the circumstances show some improper conduct on the part of the appellant or it is guilty of willful negligence, laches or delay. 5. In this case, the Union of India, through the same deponent who is before us today filed an application before the first Court, which had granted the relief on the writ, on the 28th of April, 2006, praying for time for the purpose of compliance with the Courts order. 6. The application not being disposed of a similar application was made in the month of July, 2006. It was stated there that the writ petitioners case was under active consideration and it was specifically prayed that three months time be granted for the purpose of complying with the Courts order. 7. Such time was granted. It is within that period of three months that the appeal is being sought to be preferred after obtaining condonation of delay. It was nowhere mentioned either in the application of April or in the application of July that the Union of India intended to file an appeal and that is why it wanted time. 8. On the other hand the clear impression given to the Court on the basis of the language of two petitions was that time was being prayed for so that the order would be complied with. 9. Needless to mention, appeal being a creature of statute or other written law, there can be no estoppel against the exercise of the right of appeal itself. 9. Needless to mention, appeal being a creature of statute or other written law, there can be no estoppel against the exercise of the right of appeal itself. However there is no such absolute right on the part of any litigant, including the Union of India for obtaining condonation of delay. While considering condonation, equitable principles fairly and squarely come into play. 10. If we allowed the Union of India to prefer an appeal during the time obtained for the purpose of complying with the order, we would be allowing them to blow both hot and cold at the same time. Put in another way, we would be allowing it to plead in one manner and act in quite another and thus take advantage of their own double faced approach. 11. In these circumstances equitable principles clearly dictate that condonation of delay be not granted. 12. It was prayed on the part of the respondent-soldier that time be granted for filing of an affidavit so as to oppose the consideration application. We turn the prayer down as the issue arose on the pleadings and acts of the Union of India itself, and that too manifestly, and without there being any doubt, debate or disputed in regard to the facts which we have noted above. 13. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The appeal is, therefore, not entertained. Application dismissed. .