Judgment 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing civil revision application. 2. Initially Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 2006 was filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.3.2005 and 7.4.2005 passed in Claim Case No. 20/5 of 1999/ 2004. By the impugned judgment and decree the Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,96,548.00 to the claimant after deducting the amount already paid under Sec.140 of the Act. 3. Misc. Appeal was filed after expiry of the period of limitation on 10.1.2006. Objection was raised regarding the maintainability of Misc. Appeal and thereafter it has been converted into civil revision application. 4. The limitation for filing misc. appeal has expired on 11.7.2005 and it was filed on 10.1.2006. In the limitation petition it has been stated that after receiving the judgment Branch Office of the appellant took opinion of the panel lawyer who opined that the company may file an appeal within a period of 90 days. Thereafter the divisional office took opinion of the panel lawyer and came to the conclusion that the appeal should be filed against the impugned judgment and award and accordingly file was sent to Regional Office at Patna which was received on 4.11.2006. Since internal audit was going on in the month of November, the officials of the legal department could not see the file. Lastly after departure of the audit team official of the legal department could see the file on 5.1.2006. Thereafter the panel lawyer sought time for filing appeal which has already expired and subsequently it was filed on 10.1.2006. 5. The explanation which has been given for delay is not at all satisfactory. 6. Counsel for the petitioner then asked that when the certified copy of the judgment and decree was obtained, he replied that it was obtained, on 30.4.2005. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the certified copy of the order was ready on 30.4.2005, but day to day explanation has not been given from 30.4.2005, till 10.1.2006. The explanation which has been given completely shows laches on the part of the office of the appellant. Second legal opinion was taken on 4.11.2006 and when the file was sent in the office, no one cared to look into the file simply because audit work was going on in the office. 7. The explanation which has been given completely shows laches on the part of the office of the appellant. Second legal opinion was taken on 4.11.2006 and when the file was sent in the office, no one cared to look into the file simply because audit work was going on in the office. 7. Explanation given by the counsel for the petitioner is not satisfactory. This application is dismissed on the ground of limitation.