Sufficient cause is essential for condonation of delay; merits alone do not justify filing an appeal late.

Inordinate delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned unless sufficient cause is shown; a strong case on merits does not by itself satisfy that requirement. On the facts, no sufficient cause was established for the delay of 265 days, so the condonation application was rejected and the appeal remained barred by limitation. The stated principle is that merit alone is not a substitute for the statutory requirement of sufficient cause when seeking condonation of delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 265 days in filing the appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: Condonation of delay requires not merely a cause but sufficient cause. A strong case on merits does not by itself justify condonation. On the facts, no sufficient cause was shown for the inordinate delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was rejected; consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by time.

Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause, and merit alone is not a substitute for such cause.

---