Condonation of delay requires a pragmatic, merits-focused approach where sufficient cause is shown and technical rigidity is avoided.

A pragmatic, justice-oriented approach governs condonation of delay, and a party showing sufficient cause should not be denied a merits hearing by a rigid insistence on explaining every day's delay. The petitioners' explanation that their director was unwell and had undergone a stress test was accepted as adequate, and the absence of further treatment in the report did not, by itself, discredit the explanation. The 58-day delay in filing the revision applications ought to have been condoned, so the orders refusing condonation were set aside and the revisions were directed to be registered for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 58 days in filing the revision applications against the recovery certificates deserved condonation.

Analysis: The Petitioners showed that their director was unwell and had undergone a stress test, which supported the explanation for the delay. The fact that further treatment was not shown in the report did not by itself discredit the explanation. The authority below erred in insisting on a rigid explanation for every day's delay, whereas the governing approach is to prefer adjudication on merits over rejection on technical grounds when sufficient cause is shown.

Conclusion: The delay of 58 days ought to have been condoned.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders rejecting condonation were set aside, the revision applications were directed to be registered, and the matters were to proceed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In considering condonation of delay, a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach must be adopted, and where sufficient cause is shown, a party should not be shut out from merits by a rigid insistence on explaining every day's delay.

---