Condonation of long delay fails where non-receipt of the order is unsupported by credible material and sufficient cause is not shown.

An inordinate delay of nearly five years in filing the appeal was not condoned because the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause with credible material. The assertion that the order-in-original was received only with the recovery notice was rejected where the record showed the proceedings had been contested on merits, the show cause notice had been replied to, and no convincing evidence supported non-receipt. The supporting affidavit was found vague. Mere lapse of time and a bare plea of non-receipt were insufficient to defeat the respondent's accrued right to rely on the order, and the appeal remained time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inordinate delay of nearly five years in filing the appeal was explained so as to warrant condonation.

Analysis: The application for condonation rested on the assertion that the order-in-original was received only with the recovery notice in January 2001. The record showed that the proceedings were contested on merits, the show cause notice had been replied to, and no convincing material was produced to show that the order had not been received earlier. The affidavit filed in support was found vague. The burden to show sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay lay on the appellant, and no substantial cause was established. Mere lapse of time and a general plea of non-receipt were insufficient to defeat the respondent's accrued right to rely on the order.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned, and the appeal was therefore time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: For condonation of long delay, the applicant must affirmatively establish sufficient cause with credible material; an unexplained and inordinate delay cannot be condoned on a bare assertion of non-receipt of the order.

---