Condonation of inordinate delay requires sufficient cause; unexplained lapse led to rejection and dismissal of the appeal.

Inordinate delay in filing an appeal can be condoned only on a satisfactory showing of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and strict scrutiny applies where the lapse is substantial. The appellant offered the explanation that dismissal of the case came to light only when connected matters were decided later, but the Court found this inadequate for a delay of 1731 days. Condonation was therefore refused, and the appeal could not be entertained and stood dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The appeal was filed after a delay of 1731 days. The Court applied the settled principle that delay may be condoned only where sufficient cause is shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that strict scrutiny is warranted where the delay is inordinate. On the facts, the explanation that the appellant learnt of the dismissal only when connected matters were later decided was not accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a long lapse of time.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay was rejected.

Final Conclusion: As the delay was not condoned, the appeal could not be entertained and stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of inordinate delay, condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires a satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause; absent such explanation, the belated appeal must fail.

---