Strict limitation approach defeats unexplained delay; administrative difficulties were insufficient to condone the revision filing delay.

Delay of 175 days in filing a revision was held wholly unexplained, so condonation was refused and the revision was barred by limitation. The affidavit showed service of the tribunal's order on the State representative and expiry of the limitation period, but it gave no satisfactory explanation for the subsequent period of inactivity. Administrative difficulties, including shortage of employees and absence of a permanent State representative, were treated as insufficient grounds for inaction. Limitation law was applied strictly, and leniency in condonation was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 175 days in filing the revision deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was found wholly unexplained. The affidavit showed service of the tribunal's order on the State representative and expiry of limitation, but it disclosed no satisfactory explanation for the period of inactivity. Administrative difficulties such as shortage of employees and absence of a permanent State representative were held insufficient to justify inaction. The law of limitation was applied strictly, and leniency in condonation was declined.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned, and the revision was barred by time.

---