Condonation of delay in second review failed where no sufficient cause was shown and the filing was procedurally defective.

A second review application sought condonation of 164 days' delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the explanation offered was unsupported by the record and did not show sufficient cause for filing within time. The Court also found the application procedurally defective. Delay was therefore not condoned and the application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 164 days in filing the second review application should be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The application was supported by no satisfactory explanation for the long delay. The asserted justification was not borne out by the record, and the explanation did not establish that the applicant had been prevented by sufficient cause from filing the review application within time. The Court also noted that the second review application was procedurally defective.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was rejected.

---