Condonation of delay requires concrete facts, not general administrative explanations, when a government appeal is filed late.

A government litigant seeking condonation of a 79-day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must provide material particulars covering the entire period of delay. General assertions that the matter moved through administrative levels and that sanction took time were held insufficient. The Court required concrete facts showing when the papers moved, when sanction was obtained, and why the appeal could not be filed in time. In the absence of such specifics, sufficient cause was not established and the delay was not condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was that the matter had to pass through several governmental levels and that sanction took time. The Court held that such general assertions were insufficient. A governmental litigant is not exempt from showing material particulars explaining the delay for the whole period. The earlier view applied in a similar case was followed, and the absence of concrete facts showing when the papers moved, when sanction was granted, and why the appeal could not be filed in time meant that sufficient cause was not established.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was held to be barred by limitation.

---