Sufficient cause for delay under limitation must be shown before an appeal can be admitted out of time and jurisdiction challenged.

An appeal presented in the wrong court after expiry of the limitation period could not be admitted out of time because sufficient cause for the delay was not shown. The earlier refusal to grant indulgence under the Limitation Act remained undisturbed, and the unexplained delay after the transfer order provided no basis to reopen the issue. On that footing, the High Court's dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction was correct, and interference was unwarranted absent a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to have the appeal admitted out of time on showing sufficient cause under the Limitation Act, and whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction after the earlier refusal to admit it.

Analysis: The appellant's memorandum of appeal had been presented in the wrong court and, by the time the matter reached the High Court, the period for appeal had expired. The request to admit the appeal out of time was treated as an application for indulgence under the limitation provision, but the earlier Division Bench had already found that sufficient cause had not been shown. That determination also left unexplained the delay following the transfer order. In these circumstances, there was no basis for the appellate tribunal to reopen the question or to interfere with the jurisdictional dismissal.

Conclusion: The refusal to admit the appeal out of time was upheld and the dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction was correct.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the delay was not satisfactorily explained and the jurisdictional objection consequently stood.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with a refusal to admit an appeal out of time is not warranted unless the party shows sufficient cause for the delay.

---