Vigilance in litigation and proof of discharge defeat delay condonation and a recovery challenge based on alleged settlement.

Delay in filing an appeal was refused to be condoned because the explanation of counsel lapse and non-communication was inconsistent with the record, and the appellant, as a corporate litigant, had not shown continuous diligence or a credible bona fide cause. The recovery decree and interest were upheld because the invoices for work done were undisputed, only part-payment was admitted, and no documentary proof of full and final settlement or discharge of liability was produced. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving payment, so the quantified decree was found supported by the record and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. (ii) Whether the decree for recovery and interest passed by the trial court suffered from any infirmity warranting interference.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was based on alleged lapse and non-communication by counsel, but the record showed inconsistency between the application, the complaint to the Bar Council, and the contemporaneous material. The Court emphasised that a litigant must remain vigilant, cannot remain inactive for long periods, and cannot place the entire blame on counsel when the party itself was a corporate entity expected to pursue the matter diligently. The surrounding circumstances did not establish bona fide diligence or a credible explanation for the prolonged delay.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was not liable to be condoned on the facts shown.

Issue (ii): Whether the decree for recovery and interest passed by the trial court suffered from any infirmity warranting interference.

Analysis: The invoices raised for the work done were not disputed, the appellant admitted payment of only part of the billed amount, and no documentary proof was produced to establish full and final settlement or payment of the balance. The burden to prove discharge of liability lay on the appellant, which it failed to discharge. The award of interest and the quantified decree were found to be supported by the record and, in any event, the trial court's decree was more favourable to the appellant than the principal amount and interest claimed.

Conclusion: The recovery decree and award of interest were upheld and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the trial court's decree, and the challenge to the recovery claim failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned on a vague plea of counsel negligence where the litigant fails to show continuous diligence and credible supporting material, and an admitted or unrefuted monetary liability cannot be avoided without proof of full discharge.

---