Condonation of delay failed where no proof supported the claim of a direction to file separate supplementary appeals.

Delay in filing supplementary appeals was not condoned because the appellant failed to produce proof of any direction requiring separate appeals and could not identify who issued it. In the absence of evidence showing a valid cause for the belated filing, the explanation for delay was found unsatisfactory. The application for condonation of delay was therefore rejected, and the supplementary appeals were dismissed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the supplementary appeals was satisfactorily explained and liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The supplementary appeals were filed beyond limitation on the asserted basis that they had been filed pursuant to some direction to file separate appeals. No proof of any such direction was produced, and it could not be shown who had issued it. In the absence of evidence showing a valid cause for the delay, the explanation was held to be unsatisfactory.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the supplementary appeals were dismissed as time-barred.

---