Condonation of delay refused where administrative lapses gave no sufficient explanation and appeal importance was irrelevant to limitation.

Delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused condonation because the explanation based on administrative lapses and internal Government practices was found insufficient. The Court treated the importance of the proposed appeal and the amount involved as irrelevant to limitation, and noted that a certified copy of the judgment was not required with the leave petition on the Original Side. As the petition was filed beyond time without a proper explanation, the delay was not condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was substantial and was attributed to a combination of administrative lapses and internal practices in the Government machinery. The affidavits on record were found insufficient to justify condonation. The importance of the proposed appeal and the amount involved were held to be irrelevant to the question of limitation. The Court also noted that a certified copy of the judgment was not required to be filed with the leave petition on the Original Side, and that the petition had been filed beyond time without a proper explanation for the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned.

---