Liberal condonation of delay applies where sufficient cause is shown; refusal based on possible last-minute alternatives was unsound.

Condonation of delay must be approached liberally and pragmatically to advance substantial justice where sufficient cause is shown. The explanation for a 22-day delay was not rejected, and counsel's sudden family illness was treated as a plausible reason. Refusing condonation on the basis that some last-minute alternative arrangement could have been made was held to be an unsound legal approach. The delay ought to have been condoned, and the appeal was entitled to be heard on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal should have been condoned on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis: Condonation of delay is intended to advance substantial justice, and a pragmatic approach is required while examining whether sufficient cause exists. The explanation offered for the delay was not disbelieved, and the circumstance that counsel faced a sudden family illness was treated as a plausible reason. The refusal to condone delay on the ground that some alternative arrangement could have been made at the last moment was held to be an unsound approach in law.

Conclusion: The delay ought to have been condoned, and the petitioner was entitled to have the appeal heard on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Applications for condonation of delay must be decided with a liberal and pragmatic approach to advance substantial justice where sufficient cause is shown.

---