JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, C.J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. IT is indisputable that delay in filing of this appeal, as computed by the Office, is around 10 months. The only reason as stated in the application and pressed into service during the arguments, is that, after the order, dated 2nd April, 2012 was attested and forwarded to the applicant, it was received by the servant of the applicant and the applicant was unaware of the same. He realized that fact, on 24th March, 2013, when he visited the Bank. The explanation offered is completely unacceptable. Why the servant did not disclose the receipt of the mail containing certified copy of the order, dated 2nd April, 2012 is not forthcoming. No affidavit of servant is filed stating that he failed to do so. It cannot be presumed that the servant must have forgotten to hand over copy of the mail to the applicant. As the copy of the mail was received by the servant, it was served on the agent of the applicant. It is not the case of the applicant that he was not aware about passing of the order on 2nd April, 2012. He was represented by his Advocate on that date before the Court. It is thus a case of inaction or of intentional delay caused in filing of the appeal. The explanation offered by the applicant is not a sufficient cause; muchless genuine reason for the delay in filing of the appeal. Further, it is noticed from record that the sale in favour of respondent No. 5 has been confirmed by the Court long back and including conveyance deed has been registered in favour of the said party. As aforesaid, the explanation offered by the applicant cannot be accepted and it has not been substantiated. In the circumstances, this application should fail. Counsel for the applicant has, however, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sainik Security Vs. Sheela Bhai and others1. In that decision, however, the Court found that sufficient cause for condoning the delay was made out by the applicant. On that finding, the Court showed indulgence to the applicant albeit on condition of payment of costs to the respondents. However, since we have found that no sufficient cause has been made out by the applicant, the question of showing any indulgence to the applicant does not arise. On that finding, the Court showed indulgence to the applicant albeit on condition of payment of costs to the respondents. However, since we have found that no sufficient cause has been made out by the applicant, the question of showing any indulgence to the applicant does not arise. Counsel for the applicant then relied on the decision of this Court in OSA No. 1 of 2012, dated 23rd July, 2013, in which the Court condoned the delay of almost two years and eight months on condition of payment of costs to the respondent. Once again, that indulgence was shown in the fact situation of that case, as is evident from the observation in paragraph 4 of the decision in particular. In any case, this decision is of no avail. 3. HENCE dismissed.