JUDGMENT Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-2977-C-2023 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 330 days in filing the appeal. 2. In order to seek condonation of delay, in the application filed, it has been mentioned that the Department decided to file an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Court below dated 20.01.2022 but no date, on which the said decision was taken, has been mentioned. It has been further mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay that for the first time, an officer of the Department went to meet the Additional Solicitor General of India at Chandigarh on 20.05.2022. It may be noticed that on the said date, the limitation for filing the appeal had already expired. No explanation has come forward as to why, once decision was taken to file an appeal, process for filing the same was not expedited. Further, nothing has come on record as to why, the appeal was still not filed for another period of 07 months. It may be noticed that though it is being mentioned that the Department decided to file an appeal but the pleadings in paragraph 2 of the application shows that even the certified copy of the judgment was never applied for upto July, 2022, which shows as to how the Department was proceeding with regard to the filing of the appeal. On the date of seeking certified copy of the order to appeal against, limitation for filing the appeal had already expired. 3. Though it is being mentioned that the Department had decided to file an appeal but as per the application filed, the requisite documents were sent to the Government Counsel in August, 2022 and the authority letter to file an appeal was given only in November, 2022 which shows that the Department was proceeding in a routine manner rather then as required under the law. 4. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in "Office of the Chief Post Master General and others v. Living Media India Ltd. and another", 2012 (2) SCC (Cri.) 580, has held that the delay is to be explained in a manner required for to show that the delay caused in filing the appeal was beyond the capability of the Department concerned for any particular reason. Relevant para of the judgment reads as under: "13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 14) In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs. 5. In the application seeking condonation of delay, no such reason has come forward which shows that the Department proceeded in a manner required for so as to file the appeal within the time frame prescribed. The laxity on the part of the Department is clear from the pleadings which have been made in paragraph 2 of the application. Except laxity, no other reason is visible from the pleadings in the application. 6. Further, while considering an application for condonation of delay, the crysallized rights in favour of the other party has also to be seen that they are not been prejudiced in any manner. Except laxity, no other reason is visible from the pleadings in the application. 6. Further, while considering an application for condonation of delay, the crysallized rights in favour of the other party has also to be seen that they are not been prejudiced in any manner. At present, the rights in favour of the respondent-plaintiff has already been crystallized to get the relief as granted by the Competent Court of law and the same can only be taken away in case the applicant gives a justifiable explanation to the delay and to the effect that same was beyond the control of the applicant. 7. Further, the reason which have been given are not satisfactory for the grant of condonation of delay in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Post Master's case (supra). 8. Keeping in view the above, no valid justification has come forward for the condonation of delay of approximately one year in filing the present appeal and the said application is accordingly dismissed. RSA No.796 of 2023 and CM-2978-C-2023 9. As the appeal is time barred, the same cannot be considered on merits and as the application for condonation of delay has already been dismissed, the present appeal has also been dismissed as not maintainable.