Constructive knowledge of the order date starts limitation, and unexplained delay defeats condonation in revision proceedings.

Limitation for filing a revision runs from the date of the appellate order where the party had constructive knowledge, or a clear means of knowing, the date fixed for pronouncement. Findings that both parties were present, the date was fixed immediately after hearing, and the delay in seeking the certified copy and filing the revision remained unexplained were treated as binding factual findings. On that basis, the explanation for delay was found insufficient and the revision was held barred by limitation, with refusal to condone delay upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision petition was barred by limitation and whether sufficient cause existed for condonation of the delay.

Analysis: The Tribunal found, on the facts, that the appeal had been heard in the presence of both parties and that the order fixing the date for pronouncement had been made immediately after hearing. It further found that the petitioner could have ascertained the date from the order sheet or cause list, and that the delay in applying for the certified copy and in filing the revision remained unexplained. Those findings were treated as findings of fact and were held to be binding. On that basis, limitation was computed from the date of the appellate order and the explanation offered for the delay was held insufficient.

Conclusion: The revision petition was rightly held to be barred by limitation, and the refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party had constructive knowledge or a clear to know the date fixed for orders, limitation runs from the date of the order, and unexplained delay cannot be condoned.

---