Sufficient cause for condonation of delay must be plausible and supported by material when the delay is inordinate.

Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires a fact-specific showing of sufficient cause, and inordinate delay demands a strict, plausible and substantiated explanation. A plea that counsel failed to inform the appellant of the Tribunal order was found unsubstantiated and unnatural because no affidavit or reliable material supported it, and the appellant had not acted with reasonable diligence. On that basis, sufficient cause was not established and condonation was refused, so the appeal remained time-barred and the challenge to the Tribunal order could not proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of 638 days' delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The governing principle under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is that delay may be condoned only where sufficient cause is shown, and the expression is to be applied on the facts of each case. A liberal approach may be taken in cases of short delay, but inordinate delay requires a strict and plausible explanation supported by material. In the present case, the explanation that counsel had failed to inform the appellant of the Tribunal's order was found unsubstantiated and unnatural, and no affidavit or other reliable material was produced to support the plea. The delay was long and unexplained, and the appellant had not acted with reasonable diligence.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was not established and condonation of delay was rightly refused.

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not be entertained as time-barred, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 depends on a fact-specific, plausible and substantiated showing of sufficient cause, especially where the delay is inordinate.

---