Condonation of delay requires a full, specific explanation; vague reliance on counsel changes was found insufficient.

Condonation of a 1203-day delay in seeking restoration of an appeal was refused because the explanation was unsupported by essential particulars. The claimed change in the panel of advocates and lack of communication with earlier counsel did not explain the period after dismissal, did not state when the dismissal order came to the deponent's knowledge, and gave no details of efforts to contact counsel or verify the status of the appeal. The affidavit was therefore treated as unsatisfactory, and restoration was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue had shown sufficient cause for condonation of a delay of 1203 days in seeking restoration of the appeal dismissed for non-removal of office objections.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was founded on a change in the panel of advocates and alleged lack of communication with earlier counsel. The affidavit did not explain the period between dismissal of the appeal and removal of the advocate from the panel, did not state when the order of dismissal came to the knowledge of the deponent, and gave no particulars of efforts made to contact counsel or secure information about the appeal. The absence of these essential particulars rendered the explanation unsatisfactory.

Conclusion: The request for condonation of delay was rejected and the notice of motion for restoration was dismissed.

---