9. In the case before us, after obtaining the certified copy of the order on 17-12-2014, the review petition was filed only on 25-2-2015, delayed by 37 days. Even after withdrawal of the review petition on 7-5-2015, the appeal was filed before this Court only on 7-7-2015. This Court closed for summer vacations in the year 2015 only on 16-5-2015 and reopened on 1-7-2015. Thus, there were few days left, before the closing of the Court for summer vacations, for the appellant to file the appeal after withdrawal of the review petition. The appeal was filed only after a few days of the reopening of the Court on 1-72015. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled even to the benefit of the principles under Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of the period when court is closed. Merely because the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the review petition, for the purpose of application of Section 14 before this Court for exclusion of the period, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that there was due diligence. Under Section 2( h ) of the Limitation Act, 1963, nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. The facts as narrated above would also show lack of good faith on the part of the appellant in conducting its case. Thus, the appellant having not prosecuted his case with due diligence and good faith is not entitled for the application of the principles under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.”
