Limitation and service of order controlled the appeal, as delayed filing was not justified and condonation was refused.

Delay of one year and twenty days in filing an appeal was not condoned where the appellant initially did not dispute timely receipt of the order-in-original and later admitted receipt of the copy while alleging only non-receipt of the original. The order had been sent to the correct address by registered post with the relevant outward number, and the record supported service through the prescribed statutory mode. These facts showed that the appellant had knowledge of the order within time, and the explanation for the prolonged delay was found insufficient. The condonation application was rejected and the appeal was held barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of one year and twenty days in filing the appeal against the order-in-original should be condoned, and whether the appeal was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The appellant failed to dispute timely receipt of the order-in-original in its initial pleadings and later filed an affidavit admitting receipt of the copy of the order while complaining only about non-receipt of the original. The order had been despatched to the correct address by registered post, carried the relevant outward number, and the record supported service in terms of the statutory mode of service. The circumstances showed that the appellant had knowledge of the order well within time and offered no justifiable explanation for the prolonged delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned, the condonation application was rejected, and the appeal was held to be barred by limitation.

---