Condonation of delay requires a bona fide explanation for the whole period; gross negligence defeats refiling delay relief.

Extraordinary delay in refiling requires a specific, credible and bona fide explanation for the entire period; where the explanation is vague, unsupported and rests mainly on blame to previous counsel, condonation is inappropriate. Later payment of court fee relates back to the original presentation under Section 149 CPC, and the absence of a contemporaneous application under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC does not automatically defeat the appeal filing. On the facts pleaded, however, the delay of 1727 days remained unexplained, the party showed gross negligence and lack of diligence, and no sufficient cause for condonation was established. The order condoning delay was therefore held unsustainable and the delayed appeals were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 1727 days in refiling the appeals could be condoned on the facts pleaded. (ii) Whether the initial presentation of the appeals without court fee and without a contemporaneous application under Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could defeat the filing. (iii) Whether the explanations offered disclosed sufficient cause and bona fides for condonation of delay.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 1727 days in refiling the appeals could be condoned on the facts pleaded.

Analysis: The delay in refiling was extraordinarily long and required a close scrutiny of the explanation offered. The materials showed that the papers had been filed in 2007 and scrutiny charges were paid in 2008, yet the defects were not cured until 2012. The explanation was found to be vague, unsupported by necessary particulars, and dependent mainly on a general blame placed on previous counsel. The length of delay and the absence of a convincing account for the entire period made liberal condonation inappropriate.

Conclusion: The delay of 1727 days in refiling was not liable to be condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the initial presentation of the appeals without court fee and without a contemporaneous application under Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could defeat the filing.

Analysis: Payment of court fee at a later stage was held to relate back to the original presentation by virtue of Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The absence of a simultaneous application for condonation at the time of filing was also not treated as fatal, as the procedural requirement under Order XLI Rule 3A was not construed in a manner that would automatically reject the appeal. The Court therefore rejected the contention that the appeals had to be treated as freshly filed only when the defect was cured.

Conclusion: The appeal filing was not defeated on these procedural grounds.

Issue (iii): Whether the explanations offered disclosed sufficient cause and bona fides for condonation of delay.

Analysis: The explanation was held to disclose gross negligence and lack of bona fides. The party failed to show due diligence, did not furnish satisfactory particulars regarding return of papers or the previous counsel, and did not adequately explain why the defects remained uncured for nearly five years. Applying the principles governing condonation of delay, the Court held that mere liberal approach could not override the need for a credible and bona fide explanation, particularly where the opposite side would be prejudiced by the delay.

Conclusion: No sufficient cause or bona fide explanation was established for condonation.

Final Conclusion: The order condoning delay was unsustainable and the connected appeals were not entitled to be entertained, so the appellants succeeded and the respondents' delayed appeals stood rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Extraordinary delay in refiling requires a specific, credible, and bona fide explanation for the entire period, and procedural delay cannot be condoned where the explanation discloses gross negligence and lack of diligence.

---