Delay condonation requires sufficient cause and material explanation; unsupported filing delays under the Limitation Act were rejected.

Delay in filing a special appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act only where sufficient cause is shown by material explaining the entire delay. Mere reference to internal permissions and filing steps was held inadequate because a liberal approach cannot substitute for a factual foundation, and limitation confers valuable rights on the opposite party. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the 225-day delay, the application for condonation was rejected and the special appeal consequently failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 225 days in filing the special appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The application disclosed only the dates of internal permissions and filing steps, but no material explaining the prolonged delay. The power to condone delay is to be exercised liberally only when sufficient cause is shown, and a liberal approach cannot replace the need for a factual basis. Since limitation creates valuable rights in favour of the opposite party, absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay precluded relief.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected.

Final Conclusion: As the delay condonation application failed, the special appeal also stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay under the Limitation Act can be condoned only on disclosure of sufficient cause supported by material; a liberal approach cannot override the absence of any explanation for the delay.

---