JUDGMENT : 1. By the medium of this application the applicant seeks the indulgence of this Court in condoning the delay of 363 days in filing the Civil 1st Appeal (C1A), against the decree/judgment dated 21st of April, 2012, passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in a Suit bearing File No. 23/Civil, titled Ghulam Mohammad Dar versus Rafiq Ahmad Wani, on the grounds, inter alia, that the applicant–Appellant (respondent in the Suit), in the wake of the judgment passed in the Suit, engaged a lawyer for filing an appeal in the Hon’ble High Court, who did not institute the appeal in time, which resulted in undue delay. It is further stated that the delay caused in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional as the applicant–Appellant had, well in time, entrusted the case to the advocate to enable him to file the appeal against the decree of the Court below but for the reasons known to him, he did not institute the appeal well within the statutory period. The applicant–Appellant has further stated that the counsel, on one or the other pretext, mislead him till such time that he came to know that the appeal has not been filed. The applicant–Appellant has further stated that there are substantial grounds to maintain the appeal and if the application for condonation of delay is not allowed, he will be deprived of the right to defend his case. Finally the applicant–Appellant has prayed that the application for condonation of delay be allowed so that the appeal against the decree of the Court below is instituted. 2. Objections to the maintainability of the application for condonation of delay, have been filed by the respondent. It has been stated that the only reason given by applicant–Appellant for the delay caused in filing the appeal is that he had entrusted the job to the advocate and had provided him the certified copy of the judgment/decree passed by the Court below, which had to be appealed against. It is stated that the decree has been passed on 21-04-2012 whereas the appeal has been preferred in the month of August, 2014. The respondent has further stated that there is a huge delay of more than two years in filing the appeal. It is stated that the decree has been passed on 21-04-2012 whereas the appeal has been preferred in the month of August, 2014. The respondent has further stated that there is a huge delay of more than two years in filing the appeal. It is further stated that it is no where reflected in the application for condonation of delay as to when did the applicant–appellant obtain the copy of the decree/judgment and who was the counsel, whom the job of filing of the appeal was assigned. It is also not reflected anywhere in the application as to what were the reasons that made the applicant–appellant to wait for such a long time. The respondent has stated that the settled position of law is that each and every day of delay is to be explained by the applicant/s seeking condonation of delay. The respondent has further stated that the applicant–appellant has not made any mention in the application as to on which date he came to know that the appeal has not been filed by his counsel and what further steps he took to do the needful. The respondent has stated further that the application being vague merits dismissal. 3. Heard and considered. 4. It cannot be disputed that the Law of Limitation has to be applied with all its vigor and rigor as prescribed by the Statute. One cannot escape the consequences of section 5 of the J&K Limitation Act Samvat 1995, which provides that for the extension of the period of limitation in a given case, the condition precedent is that the applicant has to satisfy the Court that he/she has a sufficient cause in seeking the indulgence of the Court for not preferring the Application or Appeal within the stipulated time. The liability of satisfying the Court that the Application or Appeal was filed with due diligence rests on the shoulders of a person seeking such a relief. The Courts cannot come to the aid and rescue of the party/s, where the application for condonation of delay does not spell out sufficient cause and the approach of the applicant, in making such application, is casual and cryptic. The base line of the application of the applicant is that he had engaged a lawyer to file the appeal, who did not file the same. The base line of the application of the applicant is that he had engaged a lawyer to file the appeal, who did not file the same. The sequence of the dates has not been given nor has the identity of the lawyer been spelt out by the applicant–appellant. This would have given a semblance of fairness to his argument. 5. Testing the application of the Applicant on the touch stone of the law, governing the subject, it will be profitable to quote paragraphs 7&8 of the law laid down in 2010(4) JKJ 638 (HC), herein below, in verbatim : “7. In the case P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276 , the Apex Court, at paragraph 6 ruled as under: “Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.” 8. In another case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deliberating upon the question of condonation of an inordinate delay of 264 days on an application preferred by the Government, has observed as under: “2. This special leave petition filed on November 16, 1993 is delayed by 264 days. For quite some time in the past this Court has been making observations as to the grave prejudice caused to public interest by appeals brought on behalf of the Government being lost on the point of limitation. Such observations have been made for over a few years in the past. But there seems to be no conspicuous improvement as is apparent in the present petition which is filed in November 1993. The explanation for the delay, had better bet set out in petitioner’s own words:………………………………………………………………………… 3. This explanation is incapable of furnishing a judicially acceptable ground for condonation of delay. After the earlier observations of this Court made in several cases in the past, we hoped that the matters might improve. The explanation for the delay, had better bet set out in petitioner’s own words:………………………………………………………………………… 3. This explanation is incapable of furnishing a judicially acceptable ground for condonation of delay. After the earlier observations of this Court made in several cases in the past, we hoped that the matters might improve. There seems to be no visible support of this optimism. There is a point beyond which even the courts cannot help a litigant even if the litigant is Government which is itself under the shackles of bureaucratic indifference. Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that Government should not be treated as any other private litigant, as indeed, in the case of the former the decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red-tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common Interests. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need for promptitude even where it affects its own interest.” 6. Applying the ratio of the law laid down above to the instant case, there has been a reckless delay of 363 days in filing the appeal and no satisfactory explanation has come forward on that count except for routine words and phrases. No doubt, a liberal approach has to be adopted in the matter of condonation of delay when there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the applicant/s but in the instant case the applicant took his own time to come to the conclusion that an application for condonation of delay for filing the appeal has to be filed. The law laid down in AIR 2011 SC 1237 enunciates this principle and it lays down as follows: “……..3/This appeal emanates from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) in Misc. Case No. 1569 of 2007 in W.A.No. 72020 of 2006. The law laid down in AIR 2011 SC 1237 enunciates this principle and it lays down as follows: “……..3/This appeal emanates from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) in Misc. Case No. 1569 of 2007 in W.A.No. 72020 of 2006. The appeal filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the High Court because of inordinate delay of 239 days. The Division Bench of the High Court, while dismissing the appeal, has observed as under : “We have gone through the contents of the petition. The delay occurred because of the respondents took their own sweet time to reach the conclusion whether the judgment should be appealed or not. It is not that they were prevented by any reason which is beyond their control to take such a decision in time. Even otherwise, on merits of the case also it does not appear to have any tenable ground of appeal. In the circumstances, we do not see any merits in this petition.” 4/We have also gone through the condonation of delay application which was filed in the High Court. In our considered view, the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay because no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay.……………….. 6/The Union of India ought to have been careful particularly in filing this Civil Appeal because the Division Bench, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on the ground of delay. It is a matter of deep anguish and distress that majority of the matters filed by the Union of India are hopelessly barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanations exist for condoning inordinate delay in filing those cases.” 7. Resort can also be had to an elaborate and a lucid judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 , the relevant excerpts of which are as under : “………..21.2. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.21.9. (ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. (ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.………………21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.22.1 (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harboring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. ………………..31.Neither leisure nor pleasure has any room while one moves an application seeking condonation of delay of almost seven years on the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice.” 8. Risking repetition, what is stated here is that the applicant has been negligent in prosecuting his claim within time and the explanation offered for the delay in filing the appeal is neither plausible nor reasonable. The application appears to have been drafted recklessly without giving a proper account of the dates and details of the grounds agitated in it and to cap it all, recourse has been had to the leisure and pleasure in moving the application. 9. To substantiate this contention further, a cue can be had from the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in COD No. 237/2016 (LPA 06/2016), wherein it has been held as follows : “1. There is a delay of 310 days in filing the accompanying appeal. The COD application which is under consideration is vague and without any specific details explaining the day to day delay in filing the appeal. There is a delay of 310 days in filing the accompanying appeal. The COD application which is under consideration is vague and without any specific details explaining the day to day delay in filing the appeal. The only explanation that has been given is that after receipt of the judgment, the appellant examined the judgment which took, “sometime” and thereafter, the judgment was sent to the State Law & Parliamentary Affairs, Ministry for further action. It is further stated that the Law & Parliamentary Affairs, Ministry examined the judgment and after examining the same, it was decided that an LPA should be filed and this also took “considerable time” and ultimately sanction for filing of the appeal was granted by the Law Department.2. No reasons have been indicated as to why in the first instance examination of the judgment took time and why in the second instance, the Law Department took considerable time in deciding to file an appeal.3. Sufficient cause for the delay clearly has not been shown by the applicants/appellants. Consequently, the COD application is dismissed. The accompanying appeal also stands dismissed.” 10. Looking at the application of the applicant from another angel, the only exception that he has taken in the application in carving out a case in his favour is that his counsel did not file the appeal against the decree of the Court below in time. The law is that a party has to be vigilant in the Court proceedings. It is the duty and responsibility of the parties to contact his/her lawyer. One cannot pass the buck on to the lawyer and state that he/she was remiss and negligent in not filing the appeal or in not attending the Court on the appointed date. The applicant has been callous in his approach and he has knocked at the doors of the Court after a great deal of time. 11. Viewed in the context of what has been said and done above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to explain the delay of 363 days in filing the application for condonation of delay for filing of the appeal. Consequently, the application for Condonation of Delay, is dismissed as barred by time.