Condonation of delay depends on bona fide explanation and absence of negligence; 332-day delay was condoned for hearing on merits.

A pragmatic and liberal approach applies to condonation of delay where the explanation shows bona fide conduct and no negligence. The Gujarat HC held that the appellant had sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because the matter was being pursued through the supplier's representative, the show cause notice and later orders had been forwarded for necessary action, and the appellant acted on the understanding that steps would be taken in time. The Court found no deliberate inaction on these facts and condoned the 332-day delay, directing the appeal to be heard on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 332 days in filing the appeal should be condoned on the showing of sufficient cause.

Analysis: In considering an application for condonation of delay, the Court applied the settled principle that a pragmatic and liberal approach is warranted where the explanation shows bona fide conduct and absence of negligence. The record indicated that the matter was being pursued through the supplier's representative, the show cause notice and subsequent orders were forwarded for necessary action, and the appellant had acted on the understanding that steps would be taken in time. On those facts, the Court found that the delay was not a case of deliberate inaction and that sufficient cause had been made out within the scope of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion: The delay of 332 days was condoned and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits.

---