JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condonation of more than two years’ delay in filing the present appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and also perused the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. The award which is now intended to be assailed by way of this time barred appeal is dated 09.12.2014. The explanation which has been given in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay is that the case file alongwith impugned award was misplaced by the family members of the applicant while carrying out whitewash in the house during the month of February, 2015 and on said account, the case file was not traceable and when said case file alongwith award was traced in January, 2017, thereafter, steps were taken to file the application for condonation of delay. 3. In my considered view, the reason which has been assigned in the application does not inspire any confidence. It is highly un-believable that a party who was aggrieved by the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal took no steps for assailing the same on the alleged ground that the case file was misplaced during whitewash. The story which has been put forth in the application apparently is concocted just to furnish an explanation to file the present application. 4. In my considered view, though procedure is hand maiden of justice but still the fact remains that in case a party does not assail an impugned order or judgment within the prescribed period of limitation, then a valuable right accrues upon the other party who is the beneficiary of such order or judgment. In case such right which is accrued upon the beneficiary party, by the afflux of time, has to be taken away by condoning delay, then the Court has to be satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal etc. was on account of bona-fide reasons and the same was neither intentional nor attributable to lapses or negligence on the part of a party praying for condonation of delay. was on account of bona-fide reasons and the same was neither intentional nor attributable to lapses or negligence on the part of a party praying for condonation of delay. As I have already mentioned above, in this application there is no sufficient cause shown by the applicant as to why steps were not taken to file appeal within the period of limitation and further the reason which has been mentioned in the application does not inspire confidence. 5. Undoubtedly, Court does condone delay even of a reasonably long period but then there has to be a cogent explanation coming forth from the applicant who is praying for condonation of delay. In the present case, the reason given is both weak and untenable. Even otherwise, it is settled law that normally after the expiry of period of limitation right to sue extinguishes and other side acquires right which normally should not be disturbed except when sufficient cause is shown by the applicant. 6. In the present case, as I have already mentioned above, the explanation given by the application for condonation of delay is weak and does not inspire confidence and moreover delay in filing the application for condonation of delay is of a long period i.e. more than two years. 7. Therefore, as there is no merit in the present application because the applicant has failed to convince this Court that delay in filing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was bona-fide and beyond reasons in control of the applicant, this application is dismissed.