Re-filing delay in a written statement may be condoned on defects, conduct, and absence of mala fide delay.

Delay in re-filing a written statement is assessed differently from delay in initial filing, and the stricter test for initial condonation does not apply automatically. The Court noted that re-filing delay must be judged by the nature of the defects, the party's conduct, and whether any mala fide intention to prolong proceedings is shown. Where the written statement was filed within time and the problem arose only after return under office objections, the delay in re-filing was condoned and the written statement was directed to be taken on record on re-filing within one week, subject to costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in re-filing the written statement could be condoned and the written statement taken on record.

Analysis: Delay in re-filing stands on a different footing from delay in initial filing. The rigorous test applicable to an application for condonation of delay in initial filing does not automatically govern re-filing. The Court relied on settled precedent that re-filing delay is to be examined with reference to the nature of the defects, the conduct of the party, and whether there is any mala fide intention to delay proceedings. In the present case, the written statement had been filed within the prescribed period and the issue arose only from re-filing after return under office objections.

Conclusion: The delay in re-filing was condoned and the appeal was allowed. The written statement was directed to be taken on record upon re-filing within one week, subject to costs.

---