JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The learned Civil Court decreed the apposite suit of the plaintiff. The defendants/petitioner herein made a endeavour before the learned First Appellate Court by belatedly instituting an appeal there from thereat to assail the verdict recorded by the Civil Court by appending therewith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, where within an espousal was made for condoning the delay of 125 days which occurred in the institution of an appeal there before by the defendants/petitioner herein. The application was contested by the plaintiff/respondent herein. On the contentious pleadings of the parties, the learned First Appellate Court struck issues whereupon in discharge of the onus cast on the relevant issues upon the contesting parties, each lead their evidence thereon. On a perusal of the evidence adduced before the learned First Appellate Court, it recorded a conclusion qua the application instituted there before under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for begetting condonation of delay which occurred in the institution of an appeal there before against the impugned judgment recorded by the Civil Court, warranting dismissal arousable from the relevant delay standing not satisfactorily explained. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for either sides at length and have also traversed through the entire record. 3. The defendants/petitioners herein stood represented before the learned Civil Court. The learned Civil Court had made a pronouncement upon the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein on 10.09.2010 whereat also the counsel for the defendants/petitioners herein recorded his presence there before. The counsel for the petitioners/defendants within limitation applied on 18.09.2010 for a copy of the apposite verdict recorded by the Civil Court. As apparent from a perusal of the record, the relevant copy as stood applied for by the counsel for the defendants/petitioners herein, stood attested on 22.09.2010. However, despite the Copying Agency readying the relevant copies of the relevant judgment and decree as stood applied for by the counsel for the petitioners/defendants for their onward transmission to him yet the counsel for the defendants/petitioners herein did not thereat obtain the relevant copies from the Copying Agency, rather he upto 10.11.2010 inordinately procrastinated their collection from the relevant Copying Agency. The factum of the relevant copies standing collected on 10.11.2010 by the counsel for the petitioner herein evinces an inference of his being throughout since 18.09.2010 whereat he applied for the relevant copies upto 10.11.2010, his recording his presence in the premises of the Civil Court concerned, significantly, when no evidence stands adduced qua since his applying for the relevant copies on 18.9.2010 upto his collecting the relevant copies on 10.11.2010, his being unavailable in the premises of the relevant Court, whereupon a concomitant inference stands sprouted qua his deliberately omitting to make their collection there from despite theirs standing readied for their delivery to him. Also the learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed on record any document showing the existence besides prevalence of any rule enjoining the ministerial staff manning the Copying Agency concerned to on the relevant copies standing readied for their onward transmission to the counsel theirs holding an obligation to purvey information qua the aforesaid facet to him. Consequently, in the absence of prevalence of the aforesaid rule casting the aforesaid injunction upon the ministerial staff manning the Copying Agency, contrarily, a conclusion spurs qua an obligation standing cast upon the counsel for the petitioner herein to visit the Copying Agency for ensuring their timely collection there from, especially when he for reasons afore stated was throughout since the recording of the apposite pronouncement on 10.9.2010 by the Civil Court upto 10.11.2010 remained present in the premises of the Court concerned. Consequently, his omission to make a timely collection of the copies of the relevant documents from the Coping Agency concerned is concluded to stand gripped with a vice of deliberateness. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submits before this Court qua the time spent in obtaining the copies from 18.09.2010 whereat he applied for delivery of copies of the relevant documents, upto 10.11.2010 whereat they stood collected by the counsel for the petitioners/defendants being amenable for its standing deducted for computing the relevant period of limitation. However, the aforesaid submission also holds no vigour, conspicuously when despite the counsel for the petitioner/defendant since his applying on 18.09.2010 for delivery of the relevant copies by the relevant Copying Agency concerned till their delivery on 10.11.2010 remained present in the Court premises, whereupon it is to be reiteratedly held qua his deliberately procrastinating their collection there from upto 10.11.2010. Also the aforesaid submission would find force with this Court if the counsel or the litigant seeking exclusion of period spent in obtaining the copies from the copying Agency was/were evidently evinced both diligence besides vigilance in not only making an apposite application within limitation before the quarter concerned, also his/theirs evidently making the relevant collection in prompt sequel to theirs standing readied for the relevant purpose also theirs by visiting the Copying Agency concerned ensuring the relevant fact of their readiness for transmission to him/them. However, since the aforesaid vigilance besides diligence by the counsel for the petitioners/defendants is evidently grossly wanting, hence, the petitioners/defendants are not entitled to seek exclusion of the period spent in obtaining the relevant copies from the relevant Copying Agency for thereupon the relevant computation of the period of limitation standing made. 5. The counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the attribution of negligence to the counsel for the petitioners/defendants cannot also stand fastened upon the petitioners herein. However, the aforesaid submission warrants it standing discountenanced arouseable from the petitioners herein being a corporate entity also when the counsel representing them before the learned Court concerned was enjoined to hold constant interaction with the officials of the entity concerned besides when the officials concerned of the entity concerned stood also enjoined to hold constant interaction with the counsel representing them in the Court concerned yet contrarily, it appears qua the officials concerned besides their counsel representing the entity concerned before the relevant Courts omitting to maintain the relevant inter action intra se each other, in sequel thereto, with officials of the corporate entity, hence, holding an alike responsibility with their counsel qua the progress of the case, it appears of each derelicting on the aforesaid facet. Consequently, the sole aforesaid responsibility of the relevant counsel, if any, which stand canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner to not encumber the entity with any hardship is obviously meritless and is rejected. In aftermath, the aforesaid submission holds good only qua individual litigants it does not for reasons aforesaid hold good qua a corporate entity here at which stands manned by experienced and responsible staff. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed. IN sequel, the order impugned here at is affirmed and maintained.