Sufficient cause for condonation of delay was not shown where the applicant failed to explain the relevant period of inaction.

Sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay was not established where the applicant knew of the proceedings at different stages but still failed to explain the relevant period of delay. A claimed bona fide belief and reliance on counsel were held insufficient on the facts, and the pendency of a co-accused's matter was immaterial because it did not account for the delay in the present restoration application under the Limitation Act. The application was therefore liable to be rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay in filing the restoration application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The explanation for the delay was found to be unsatisfactory. The record showed that the applicant had knowledge of the proceedings at different points in time, yet the delay from the relevant dates remained unexplained. The asserted bona fide belief and the plea that the matter was being pursued by counsel were not accepted as sufficient justification in the facts of the case. The pendency of a co-accused's matter was held to be immaterial where the applicant failed to account for the delay in the present application.

Conclusion: The applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and the application was liable to be rejected.

---