Limitation law and condonation of delay: inordinate delay requires a convincing explanation, and lack of diligence defeats relief.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires a convincing explanation before inordinate delay can be excused. The High Court applied the settled distinction between short delays, which may receive a liberal approach, and prolonged delays, which demand stricter scrutiny and proof of diligence. On the facts, the State's explanation for the delayed filing was found unsatisfactory and reflected lack of diligence in pursuing the litigation, so sufficient cause was not established and condonation was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State had shown sufficient cause to warrant condonation of a delay of 1298 days in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The application for condonation of delay was governed by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The explanation offered by the State was found unsatisfactory in the facts of the case, and the prolonged delay reflected lack of diligence in pursuing the litigation. The Court applied the settled principle that while delay of short duration may receive a liberal approach, inordinate delay requires stricter scrutiny and must be supported by a convincing explanation.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was not established, and the delay was not liable to be condoned.

---