Judgment Nawab Singh, J. 1. This plaintiffs appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby he accepted the appeal preferred by the defendants, set aside the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2004 of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh and dismissed the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 2. The plaintiff is married with Suresh kumar. She has four children. On motivation given by the defendants, she had got herself sterilized at CHC, Mohindergarh on 10.11.1997 by defendant No.3. Due to negligence of defendants, the plaintiff got pregnant and gave birth to a female child on 4.2.2000. It was pleaded that she was a poor lady and due to incompetence and negligence of defendants, she was burdened with additional girl child. Hence, suit for damages. 3. The defendant resisted the suit and filed written statement. It has been, inter alia, averred that plaintiff was not assured that there was no failure rate of the operation. She herself consented to the same. Competent doctor carefully conducted the sterilization operation and child was not born due to any negligence of the doctor. Further, plaintiff could get the pregnancy terminated when she came to know about her conception. 4. On the contest of parties, following issues were framed: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,00,000 on the ground as mentioned in the plaint? opp (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (3) Whether the suit is bad for want of proper court-fee? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD (5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time-barred? OPD (6) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of necessary parties? OPD (7) Relief. 5. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed. The defendants filed appeal. First appellate court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that negligence of the doctor in conducting the operation was not proved by any cogent and reliable evidence. 6. Along with memorandum of appeal, an application has been filed for condonation of delay of 103 days in refiling the appeal. The only ground pleaded for condonation is that the delay was not intentional. 7. 6. Along with memorandum of appeal, an application has been filed for condonation of delay of 103 days in refiling the appeal. The only ground pleaded for condonation is that the delay was not intentional. 7. No explanation has been put forth by the applicant-appellant as to why delay occurred in refiling of the appeal. It is well settled principle of law of limitation that those who are sleeping over their rights, their slumber should not be disturbed. In raghunath V/s. State of Haryana, 1998 (2)SLJ 1277, a Division Bench of this court has commented that Act cannot be given a complete go-by and it cannot be held that whatever be the delay and however unsatisfactory the explanation, the court is bound to condone it. In Ajit Singh V/s. Karnail Singh, (2000-2) 125 PLR 381, it was held by this court that though the law regarding condonation of delay is very liberal but it cannot be stretched to mean that a party can approach the court any time it likes, totally ignoring the rigours provided in the Act. The Honble Supreme Court of india ruled in P. K. Ramachandran V/s. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276, that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 8. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that it was a fit case where this court should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, still, it will be of no avail to the plaintiff-appellant as the appellant has hardly any case on merit. 9. What calls for pointed notice is that when a lady undergoes surgery of the kind involved in the case and she later conceives it will of course prove that the operation was not successful but something more is required to be established. That something is negligence on part of the doctor concerned. Without proof of such negligence the lady would not be entitled to damages or compensation. 10. There always remains 3 to 7 percent chance of failure of such operation depending on technique adopted. That is due to reasons beyond the control of the surgeons. That something is negligence on part of the doctor concerned. Without proof of such negligence the lady would not be entitled to damages or compensation. 10. There always remains 3 to 7 percent chance of failure of such operation depending on technique adopted. That is due to reasons beyond the control of the surgeons. Unless negligence on part of the doctor is proved by sufficient and cogent evidence, the doctor cannot be held liable. 11. In the case in hand, plaintiff failed to prove negligence by any satisfactory evidence. It has not been shown that the doctor was guilty of any act of omission or commission. It has been so ruled by a three-Judge Bench of Honble Apex Court in State of Punjab V/s. Shiv Ram, 2005 ACJ 2084 (SC ). 12. In upshot for the reasons recorded supra, no illegality or irregularity is discernible in the well considered impugned judgment of first appellate court. The same is, therefore, upheld. 13. Resultantly, the application under section 5 of the Act and the appeal are hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.