Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. Plaintiff-respondent filed the instant suit seeking the following relief:- Suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 24.7.2002 alleged to have been passed by the CSC is illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and as such is ineffective and not binding on the right of the plaintiff and plaintiff is co-owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 78/13 situated at village Rataur, H.B. No. 252, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala as per Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 attached herewith and the entries made in revenue records effecting the rights of the plaintiff adversely are wrong, illegal and ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff and his other co-sharer and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property by way of auction or otherwise interfering in the ownership and possession of plaintiff in any manner whatsoever plaint under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was decreed with costs by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.2011 in the following terms:- It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs to the effect that plaintiff co-owner in possession of the suit land as per Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 and the entries made in revenue records effecting the rights of the plaintiff adversely are wrong, illegal, ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff and other co-owners and defendants are restrained from alienating the suit property by way of auction or otherwise interfering in the ownership of the plaintiff. 2. Still not satisfied, plaintiff/respondent filed the first appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court which was also dismissed by the District Judge, Ambala, vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2012 in the following terms:- It is ordered that the appeal fails and has been dismissed with costs against the appellants/defendants and in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 3. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the State of Haryana and others have filed the instant appeal. 4. Along with this appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 472 days i.e. C.M. No. 12836-C of 2013 has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that the aforesaid delay has been caused due to administrative exigencies. 4. Along with this appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 472 days i.e. C.M. No. 12836-C of 2013 has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that the aforesaid delay has been caused due to administrative exigencies. It has not been explained as to how the matter was kept pending so long for taking the decision to file the instant appeal. 5. It is useful to refer to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General & ors. Versus Living Media India Ltd. & anr. 2012 (2) SCT 269 wherein it has been held that in an appeal filed on behalf of the State or its instrumentalities, unless a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay is given and there was bona fide effort on the part of the appellants, the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process, is not to be accepted. 6. In view thereof, I find no sufficient reasons to condone the delay. The prayer is rejected. Since the delay has not been condoned, the appeal is dismissed as time barred.