Condonation of delay fails where no specific explanation supports prolonged inaction after repeated extensions and office objection dismissal.

A 374-day delay in moving to set aside rejection of an appeal for non-removal of office objections was found unjustified. The motion followed dismissal of the appeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, but the Revenue had already received multiple extensions and gave no specific explanation for the period of inaction after the last extension. General references to administrative difficulty and staff shortage were treated as unparticularised and not bona fide, and therefore insufficient to support condonation of the delay. The delay was not condoned and the motion was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether 374 days' delay in taking out the motion for setting aside the rejection of the appeal for non-removal of office objections deserved condonation.

Analysis: The motion was filed after the appeal had been rejected under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules for failure to remove office objections. The Revenue had already obtained multiple extensions of time, yet offered no specific explanation for the inaction after the last extension. The stated cause of administrative difficulty and shortage of staff was found to be neither particularised nor bona fide, and was held insufficient to justify condonation of such a long delay.

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

---