Liberal condonation of delay applied where explanation was broadly acceptable and no bona fides were lacking, allowing merits hearing.

Condonation of delay should be approached liberally where the explanation is broadly acceptable and there is no gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fides. The Court held that an inadvertent error in the date stated in the condonation application was not enough to justify denial of a hearing on merits, especially when the explanation for delay was otherwise substantially accepted. The delay in filing the special appeal was therefore condoned, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the special appeal before the High Court ought to have been condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis: Condonation of delay is not a matter of course, but where there is no gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fides, a liberal approach is required to advance substantial justice. The explanation for the delay was accepted substantially up to 02.11.2006, and the further refusal rested only on an apparent inadvertent error in the date mentioned in the condonation application. In the circumstances of this case, that mistake was not sufficient to justify denial of hearing on merits.

Conclusion: The delay ought to have been condoned.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the delay in filing the special appeal was condoned, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Applications for condonation of delay should be decided on a liberal and justice-oriented approach where the explanation is broadly acceptable and there is no gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fides, particularly when refusal would defeat adjudication on merits.

---