Condonation of delay challenge rejected where no substantial question of law arose from the appellate court's factual assessment.

Interference with refusal to condone delay was declined where the appellate court had assessed the surrounding facts, including the parties' prior litigation, and found the explanation for delay unacceptable. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, so the dismissal of the appeal and the refusal to condone delay were left undisturbed. The challenge to the appellate court's order therefore failed, and the matter stood finally disposed of against the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the appellate court's dismissal of the appeal after refusal to condone delay.

Analysis: The appellants sought a liberal approach for condonation of delay, but the appellate court had examined the surrounding facts, including the parties' prior litigation, and found the explanation for delay unacceptable. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration.

Conclusion: No interference was called for with the dismissal of the appeal and the refusal to condone delay.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the appellate court's order failed, and the matter stood finally disposed of against the appellants.

---