Curable filing defects in appeals should not bar merits review when rectification and delay condonation are possible.

Appeals rejected for curable filing defects, including absence of a condonation application, should ordinarily not be foreclosed when the merits have not been examined. The HC held that the appellant's statutory appellate remedy should be preserved where the memorandum of appeal can be rectified and delay condonation can be sought, and it quashed the rejection order. The petitioner was permitted to file the condonation applications, correct the appeal papers, and have the appellate authority consider the appeals in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether appeals rejected only for defective filing and absence of an application for condonation of delay should be quashed and the appellant given an opportunity to cure the defects and have the appeals considered on merits.

Analysis: The appeals had been rejected not on merits but for defective presentation, including the absence of a condonation application. The petitioner had a statutory appellate remedy against the reassessment order, and the defect was capable of being cured. In the interest of justice, the Court found it appropriate to permit the petitioner to file the condonation applications and rectify the memorandum of appeal so that the appellate authority could consider the matter in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The rejection order was quashed and the petitioner was allowed to cure the defects and seek condonation of delay before the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal is rejected for curable procedural defects and not on merits, the appellate process should ordinarily be preserved by permitting rectification and consideration on merits in accordance with law.

---