Condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation for the entire period, and revision cannot reappraise sufficiency of cause alone.

Medical evidence of hospitalization and surgery did not by itself establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, because the petitioner still had adequate opportunity to instruct counsel and pursue the appeal. The delay was also left unexplained after the certified copies became available, and the application for copies was filed only after the appeal period had expired. The article further states that revisional interference with an order refusing condonation is limited to illegality or material irregularity, not merely a different view on sufficiency of cause. On those grounds, the refusal to condone delay was upheld as free from jurisdictional error.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner established sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and whether the revisional court could interfere with the order refusing condonation.

Analysis: The petitioner produced medical material to show hospitalization and surgery, but the Court found that he still had adequate opportunity to instruct counsel and pursue the filing of the appeal. The application for certified copies was made after the appeal period had already run, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for the further delay after the copies were ready. The Court also held that in revisional jurisdiction interference is confined to cases of illegality or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction, and not merely because another view on sufficiency of cause is possible.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, and the refusal to condone delay disclosed no jurisdictional error or material irregularity; the challenge was therefore untenable.

---