Mandatory affidavit support for delayed second appeals was required, and a later condonation petition did not cure non-compliance.

Delay in filing a second appeal was held to be inordinate and the explanation was not accepted as satisfactory because no supporting affidavit was produced from the son or the vakil's clerk. Order XLI Rule 3A(1) was treated as mandatory, requiring an appeal filed after limitation to be accompanied by an affidavit-supported application showing sufficient cause. A condonation petition filed later did not cure the defect, so the delay was not condoned and the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the procedural requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the second appeal was satisfactorily explained and whether an application for condonation of delay filed after presentation of the appeal satisfied Order XLI Rule 3A(1).

Analysis: The delay was found to be inordinate and the explanation was not accepted as convincing or satisfactory, particularly because no supporting affidavit was produced from the son or the vakil's clerk. The Court further held that Order XLI Rule 3A(1) makes it mandatory for an appeal filed after limitation to be accompanied by an affidavit-supported application showing sufficient cause, and the later filing of the condonation petition did not meet that requirement.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the petition was held liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirement.

---