Condonation of delay is barred beyond the statutory limit where late receipt is disproved and alternate explanations are inconsistent.

Where a statute fixes a limited period for condonation of delay, the appellate authority cannot extend limitation beyond that ceiling, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not enlarge that jurisdiction. The plea that the order was received late was rejected as factually untenable on the service records, which showed earlier receipt. The alternative explanation that records were destroyed in a cyclone was inconsistent with the primary stand and could not cure the delay. On these facts, the delay was not condonable and the challenge to the dismissal of the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned beyond the statutory period on the plea that the order was received late and that records were destroyed in a cyclone.

Analysis: The appeal against the original order was filed long after the prescribed period. The finding recorded from the service records was that the order had been received much earlier than claimed, making the plea of late receipt factually untenable. The alternative plea based on cyclone damage was inconsistent with the main stand and could not be accepted as a substitute explanation. In any event, the appellate authority had no power to condone delay beyond the period permitted by the statute, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not enlarge that jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the challenge to the dismissal of the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a fixed and limited condonable period, the appellate authority cannot extend limitation beyond that period, and a party cannot rely on an inconsistent alternative plea to overcome a factually disproved claim of delayed service.

---