Condonation of delay failed where the explanation covered only part of the delay and showed no sufficient cause.

Delay in moving to set aside a self-operating order was not explained for the entire period, as the affidavit covered only a later segment of the 171-day delay and did not account for the failure to act promptly after rejection of the appeal for non-removal of office objections. The explanation was treated as casual and insufficient cause was not shown, so condonation was refused and the application rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a delay of 171 days in filing the application to set aside the self-operating order deserved to be condoned.

Analysis: The application sought condonation of delay in challenging the self-operating order by which the appeal stood rejected for failure to remove office objections within the time allowed. The explanation furnished covered only a later segment of the delay and did not account for the entire period. The earlier affidavit also failed to explain why the application was not moved promptly after dismissal of the appeal. The explanation was found to be casual and no sufficient cause was shown.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was rejected.

---