Condonation of delay requires a full, credible explanation; ordinary family difficulties do not justify inordinate lateness.

Delay in filing an appeal can be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 only on a satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause for the entire period of default. The explanation based on an FIR, the proprietor's arrest, and later personal or family difficulties was found inadequate because the order had been received long before the appeal was filed and no credible account was given for the intervening delay. Ordinary domestic events, including childbirth or a family member's surgery, were held insufficient to justify such an inordinate delay. The Tribunal's finding that the appeal was time-barred was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of four years in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was liable to be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause.

Analysis: Under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, delay may be excused only when the appellant shows sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. The explanation offered for the belated filing consisted of the filing of an FIR, arrest of the proprietor, subsequent personal and family difficulties, and other domestic . The material on record also showed that the order had been received long before the appeal was filed, yet no satisfactory explanation was given for the entire intervening period. Ordinary incidents of life such as the birth of a child or the need for a family member's surgery were not treated as sufficient cause for such an inordinate delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned, and the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay, and ordinary personal or family , without a credible explanation for the intervening inaction, do not constitute sufficient cause.

---