Condonation of delay rejected where revenue failed to explain prolonged inaction and mere change of counsel was insufficient cause.

Condonation of a 639-day delay was refused because the applicant failed to give a credible, specific explanation for the entire period. The affidavit relied on change of panel counsel and departmental reorganisation, but did not state when the department first learned of the dismissal, a material fact for assessing delay. The Court held that a mere change of advocates does not relieve revenue officers of the duty to monitor pending litigation, and unexplained inaction showed negligence rather than sufficient cause. The motion to set aside the order rejecting the appeal was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 639 days in filing the motion to set aside the order rejecting the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The application attributed the delay to change of panel counsel and reorganisation of the department. The Court held that the affidavit did not explain when the department first learnt of the dismissal, which was a material fact for deciding condonation. A mere change of advocates did not absolve the revenue officers from monitoring pending litigation and taking timely steps. The Court treated the conduct as negligence and relied on the principle that unexplained and belated inaction by the revenue does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the motion was rejected, against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to excuse the prolonged and unexplained delay, holding that lack of diligence by the revenue barred the requested relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In applications for condonation of delay, the applicant must show a credible and specific explanation for the entire period of delay, and administrative change or internal reorganisation by itself does not amount to sufficient cause where the record shows negligence in pursuing the matter.

---