Condonation of inordinate delay requires a full, credible explanation; unexplained inaction defeats revival of a dismissed appeal.

A 632-day delay in moving to set aside a self-operating order dismissing an appeal for non-removal of office objections was not condoned because the application gave no date of knowledge, no particulars explaining the delay, and no effective justification. The Court treated the delay as wholly unexplained and reiterated that a party, especially the Revenue, must act with diligence in pursuing appeals; casual or negligent conduct cannot amount to sufficient cause. The application was rejected, and no time extension was granted to revive the dismissed appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the 632 days' delay in filing the application to set aside the self-operating order rejecting the appeal for non-removal of office objections deserved condonation under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.

Analysis: The application for condonation did not disclose when the applicant learnt of the rejection of the appeal, contained no particulars explaining the delay, and did not offer any effective explanation. The delay was therefore wholly unexplained. The Court also noted its earlier observations that the Revenue must act with diligence in pursuing its appeals and that casual, negligent handling of such matters cannot be treated as sufficient cause for condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings ended against the applicant Revenue, with no enlargement of time granted to revive the dismissed appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: An inordinate delay supported by no particulars or satisfactory explanation does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.

---