Sufficient cause and clean hands control delay condonation where false explanations and suppressed facts defeat discretionary relief.

Delay condonation in a criminal appeal was refused where the applicant relied on contradictory medical certificates, gave incomplete explanations, and failed to disclose incarceration during part of the relevant period. The note states that a party seeking discretionary relief must place true and complete facts before the court, and that suppression of material facts or reliance on fabricated documents disentitles the applicant to indulgence. It further explains that "sufficient cause" cannot be established by a litigant who approaches the court with false explanations, and the refusal to condone the delay was not disturbed in revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the conviction order was rightly refused to be condoned and whether the revisional court should interfere with that refusal.

Analysis: The application for condonation was found to rest on unreliable and contradictory medical certificates and on explanations that did not disclose the full factual position, including the applicant's incarceration during part of the relevant period. The Court held that a litigant seeking discretionary relief must place true and complete facts before the court, and that suppression of material facts and reliance on fabricated documents disentitled the applicant to indulgence. The expression "sufficient cause" cannot assist a party who approaches the court with unclean hands and false explanations.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone the delay was upheld and no interference was warranted in revision; the applicant failed to establish sufficient cause.

---