Substantial question of law was not shown where delay was factual and merits-based reliance went unappealed.

The Karnataka HC noted that the condonation of delay issue was treated as a question of fact and did not, on the materials placed, give rise to a substantial question of law. It further held that reliance on a jurisdictional High Court decision stemmed from the main appellate order on merits, against which no separate appeal had been filed. The challenge to the Tribunal's treatment of the affidavit, dismissal of the miscellaneous petition, and permission to withdraw the appeal did not establish any substantial question of law from the impugned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal gave rise to any substantial question of law, including challenge to the Tribunal's treatment of the affidavit, dismissal of the miscellaneous petition, reliance on the jurisdictional High Court decision, and permission to withdraw the appeal.

Analysis: The question relating to condonation of delay was treated as one of fact and not as giving rise to any question of law. The reliance on the jurisdictional High Court decision was held to arise from the main appellate order on merits, against which no appeal had been preferred. On the materials placed, no substantial question of law was shown to arise from the order under challenge.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from the impugned order, and the appeal was dismissed.

---