JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02 of 2018 i.e. application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The instant appeal filed by the State is delayed by a period of 11 months though the particulars have not been stated in the application. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/ State would submit that initially the order was passed by the learned Commercial Court, Raipur on 30.08.2017 and thereafter the certified copy was applied immediately in the month of September, 2017. Thereafter, it was forwarded to get the permission from the respective departments to file the appeal. She would further submit that the department in turn forwarded it to the law department and the law department thereafter accorded permission in the month of November, 2017, to file the appeal. She would submit that subsequent thereto the documents which were scattered in the Commercial Court and different departments were collected, which took some time, consequently the delay was caused. She referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and Others reported in (1996) 3 SCC132 and would submit that since, it is a matter of government department different procedural aspects and sanctions are required to take any further action/ step according to the hierarchy of working. Consequently, it can be inferred that bonafide delay has been occurred. She further submits that the expression "explaining sufficient cause" may be considered liberally while dealing in commercial court matters and accordingly the delay of 11 months may be condoned. 3. Per contra, Shri V.R. Rao, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Ashok Mishra would submit that the initial dispute started in June, 1989. Taking the facts as it is, he submits that the application for condonation of delay contains no plausible explanation for delay. He would submit that the delay of more than 11 months have been caused in filing the appeal and in taking the situation in between the period i.e. 22.11.2017 on which permission is said to be accorded by the law department and filing of the appeal on 11.09.2018 no plausible, bonafide explanation has been given. Consequently, the application under Section 5 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal deserves to be dismissed summarily. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the application under Section 5 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal deserves to be dismissed summarily. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on application for condonation of delay. The issue emerges out from a litigation under the Commercial Court Act, 2015. In order to evaluate the reasons which have been assigned, we deem it proper to travel to the object of the Commercial Court Act, 2015. The object of promulgation of the legislation of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 was to provide the speedy disposal of the high level commercial disputes, therefore, the need was felt to provide for an independent mechanism for their early resolution, so that the early resolution of commercial dispute shall create a positive image to the investors of world about the independent and responsive Indian legal system. Consequently, the Law Commission of India in its 188th Report had recommended the constitution of Commercial Division in each High Court. Accordingly, Commercial Division of High Courts Bill, 2009 was introduced and passed by the LokSabha. Reading of the Act would show that the under line object was for disposal of the commercial disputes, as early as possible, which would in turn reflect the image of ease of business in India. Therefore, in these backgrounds what are the reasons assigned under Section 5 for condonation of delay would be important. 5. Application under Section 5 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein the events of the facts have been narrated are reproduced hereinunder:- a. On 30.08.2017 -The order under appeal was passed by the learned Commercial Court, State Level Naya Raipur (C.G.) b. On 11.09.2017 -Certified copy of the order and decree was applied and on the same day, the same was delivered. c. That, immediately after passing the order impugned by the learned court below, the concerned Public Prosecutor has immediately forwarded proposal for filing of appeal against the order under appeal and on receipt of the said proposal, after due examination and consideration, the Chief Engineer, Minimata (Hasdeo) Bango Project, Bilaspur vide letter dated 23.09.2017, forwarded the proposal to the Department of Water Resources, Raipur seeking permission from the department of Law for assailing the order under appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur and accordingly on 10.11.2017 the matter was forwarded to the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Raipur for obtaining the permission for filing the present appeal. d. On 22.11.2017 -Acting on the proposal, the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs has accorded its permission for filing the present appeal against the order under appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. e. On 25.11.2017 -That, after receipt of the aforesaid permission from the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, the Executive Engineer (Incharge Officer), Hadeo Barrage, Water Management Divison, Rampur Korba District Korba C.G. has been appointed as Officer in Charge of the case with a direction to file an appeal against the order under appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. f. On many occasions, the aforesaid officer in Charge of the case appeared before the office of the Advocate General for preparation of appeal against the order under appeal passed by the learned Court below, on which he was directed to come with the relevant records and documents. g. That, since the matter was travelled up to the Tribunal as well as the Commercial Court (District Level) Raipur and therefore, times were consumed in collecting the relevant materials and records pertaining to the present case which is not deliberate and intentional as the same is bonafide. h. On 11.09.2018 -Ultimately when the records and documents pertaining to the present case are received, the present Officer in Charge immediately approached the office of the Advocate General, Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur and after detailed discussions and in consultation with the Present Officer In Charge of the case, the present appeal has been drafted and is being filed without any further delay. 6. Perusal of the records would show that the appeal was filed on 30.10.2018 and office note shows that there was delay of 338 days. 7. 6. Perusal of the records would show that the appeal was filed on 30.10.2018 and office note shows that there was delay of 338 days. 7. Recently Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Government of Maharasthra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer Vs. Borse Borthers engineers and Contractors Private Limited reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460 while deciding the condonation of delay observed that the delay to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule at para 63 has observed as under : "63. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party’s inaction, negligence or laches." 8. Translating the aforesaid principle in the facts of this case would show that the order by the Commercial Court was passed on 30.08.2017, the certified copy was applied on 11.09.2017, there is no plausible reason as to why it was delayed by 10 days. The application for condonation of delay further purports that it was further forwarded to public prosecutor and proposal for filing of the appeal was prepared and after examination by the Chief Engineer on 23.09.2017, permission from the law department was sought for and the same was forwarded to the law department and the law department accorded permission on 22.11.2017. Thereafter, the collection of papers from different departments took considerable time and eventually as the records shows, the appeal was filed before this Court on 30.10.2018. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Thereafter, the collection of papers from different departments took considerable time and eventually as the records shows, the appeal was filed before this Court on 30.10.2018. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani (supra), "the delay in the commercial matters is to be condoned by way of exception and not by rule". Considering the object for which the Commercial Court Act was promulgated and the reasons which are assigned for condonation of delay they cannot be harmonized so as to evolve and presume the sufficient cause is explained. We are of the view, that the reasons so assigned in the application for condonation of delay whereby the delay of 338 days has been caused has not been properly explained which can be said to be bonafide or sufficient reason. In a result, the application filed for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, as a result the appeal also fails. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.