ORDER 1. The instant defendant’s appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 29/3/2012; whereby, appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation as there was unexplained delay of near about 5 years. As a matter of fact, appeal in this Court has also been filed beyond the period of limitation and as per the office report, appeal is barred by 207 days. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed along with this appeal vide I.A. No. 568/13 showing cause for not preferring the appeal within time that counsel did not communicate the final decision passed by the first appellate Court. In the opinion of this Court, it is hardly an explanation. 2. Even if the delay in filing the instant appeal is ignored, then also the order rendered by the first appellate Court, in the opinion of this Court does not warrant any interference. Appeal filed before the first appellate Court was barred by more than 5 years. The factual matrix framed for explanation of delay in fact suggest that there is no explanation at all for preferring the first appeal belatedly. The judgment of trial Court was rendered on 18.11.2005. It is submitted that as appellant was roped in a murder case and he was in jail and during this period, the judgment was rendered by the trial Court, therefore, he was prevented by sufficient cause for preferring the first appeal. If the factual narrations are carefully seen, reasons shown appear to be devoid of substance. The trial Court had delivered the judgment on 18.11.2005. The appellant was in jail only during 27.10.2005 to 25.5.2006 and the appeal has been filed on 28.2.2011. The first appellate Court has dealt with the issue as regards knowledge of the judgment to the appellant in para 9 and 10 of the order and on detailed discussion, it has been found that the certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court dated 18.11.2005 was hand over to the son of the appellant on 29.11.2005. This fact is admitted by appellant’s son Manmohan. There is no explanation at all as to how appellant had no knowledge of the judgment so passed when his own son had obtained the copy of the order. This fact is admitted by appellant’s son Manmohan. There is no explanation at all as to how appellant had no knowledge of the judgment so passed when his own son had obtained the copy of the order. Even if the period during which the appellant was in jail i.e. from 27.10.2005 to 25.5.2006 is excluded, still after May, 2006 till February, 2011 for near about 5 years, there is no explanation offered by the appellant that when he obtained the copy of the judgment on 29.11.2005 why the appeal has been filed on 28.2.2011. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the first appellate Court was fully justified having dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as appeal is barred by near about 5 years and there is no cause much less sufficient cause shown by the appellant for preferring the appeal belatedly. 3. The consistent view of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts though is to adopt a liberal approach in considering the application for condoning the delay provided sufficient cause is shown under section 5 of the Limitation Act, however, the concept of liberal approach or substantial justice cannot be stretched to the extent to impede substantial law of limitation. While considering the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act, the Courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. The special judicial powers have to be exercised with caution and within the reasonable limits permissible under the law. The discretion exercised need to be informed by reasons. Discretionary powers cannot be influenced by whims or fancies, prejudices or predilections. 4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no reason or justification to interfere with the order of the first appellate Court where the Court has dealt with the matter in detail and reached the conclusion that there is no explanation much less plausible explanation showing sufficient cause which prevented the appellate to prefer the appeal in time. On the contrary, appellant had knowledge of the judgment as his son obtained the certified copy of the judgment on 29.11.2005 and in any case, after being released on 25.5.2006, the appellant cannot be said to have no knowledge of the judgment of the trial Court. On the contrary, appellant had knowledge of the judgment as his son obtained the certified copy of the judgment on 29.11.2005 and in any case, after being released on 25.5.2006, the appellant cannot be said to have no knowledge of the judgment of the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the first appellate Court was fully justified having dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. 5. Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P., (2011) 4 SCC 363 has held in para 28 as under:- “We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any list between the parties. We are rather pained to notice that in this case, not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, the High Court resorted to blatant sarcasms.” 6. In this view of the matter, I.A. No. 568/2013, an application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is hereby rejected and the appeal is also dismissed