Condonation of delay requires a bona fide, consistent explanation; contradictory counsel error and unproven legal disability will not suffice.

Condonation of delay depends on a bona fide, consistent and credible explanation showing sufficient cause, and courts may in appropriate cases accept a genuine mistake of counsel to advance substantial justice. A later explanation that contradicts the original record, is not satisfactorily supported by counsel, or fails to show legal disability will not meet that standard. On the facts discussed, the explanation shifted from illness and inability to understand proceedings to an asserted mistaken belief about limitation, but the material showed only illness and not legal disability such as insanity. The delay was therefore not excused and the request for condonation was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, including whether the delay could be excused on the basis of alleged bona fide mistake of counsel and legal disability.

Analysis: The application for condonation was supported by an original explanation based on illness and inability to understand proceedings, but the later supplementary application introduced a different basis, namely a mistaken belief that the period of limitation would run from the cessation of legal disability. The Tribunal held that a party may, in appropriate cases, rely on counsel's bona fide mistake, and that 'sufficient cause' calls for a liberal approach to advance substantial justice. However, the explanation must be consistent, credible, and shown to be bona fide. The later ground contradicted the earlier application, was not satisfactorily explained by the advocate who had drafted both, and did not establish that the appellant was legally disabled so as to attract any extended period of limitation. The material indicated only illness and not insanity, and the later explanation appeared to be an attempt to overcome limitation after the first application had failed.

Conclusion: The applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay and the condonation request was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not survive on limitation and the request for restoration of delay was refused, leaving the dismissal of the appeal barred by time undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mistake of counsel may justify condonation only when it is bona fide, consistent with the earlier record, and supported by due care and attention; a contradictory or untrustworthy later explanation cannot constitute sufficient cause under the limitation law.

---