Delay condonation requires a credible, sufficient explanation for the entire period; unexplained delay led to dismissal.

Delay condonation requires disclosure of a credible and sufficient cause for the entire period of delay; a bare narration of past proceedings is inadequate. The explanation for a 570-day delay did not reveal the actual reason for default and was not supported by acceptable grounds, so the liberal approach to condonation did not assist the applicants on the facts presented. The applications for condonation were rejected, and the connected appeals were treated as not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 570 days in filing the appeals deserved condonation.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay did not disclose the actual cause of delay and only narrated the past course of proceedings. The delay was not supported by appealable or acceptable reasons, and the cited principles on liberal consideration of delay condonation did not assist the appellants on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The applications for condonation of delay were rejected, and consequently the appeals were held to be not maintainable and dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay condonation requires disclosure of a credible and sufficient cause for the entire period of delay; a bare or unexplained narration is inadequate and will not justify condonation.

---