Condonation of delay denied where the appellant failed to show diligence and gave an unsatisfactory explanation for late filing.

Delay of fifty-four days in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation that the appeal papers were lost in counsel's chamber was found unsatisfactory. The applicant failed to show diligence in pursuing the filing within limitation or in taking timely preparatory steps before expiry of the prescribed period. As the reasons disclosed did not establish a sufficient basis for condonation, the application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of fifty-four days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was that the appeal papers, after being handed over to an advocate, were allegedly lost in the advocate's chamber. The explanation was found unsatisfactory because the applicant had not shown diligence in pursuing filing of the appeal within time or in taking the necessary preparatory steps before expiry of limitation. The reasons disclosed were held insufficient to constitute a valid basis for condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was rejected.

---