Condonation of delay requires explanation of both default period and date of knowledge of non-compliance; motion failed.

In a condonation application, the applicant must explain the entire period of delay, including when non-compliance was first discovered and the delay thereafter. Where an appeal had earlier been restored subject to removal of office objections within a fixed time, failure to comply and failure to disclose the date of knowledge of that default meant no sufficient cause was shown. The delay was not condoned and the motion failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 887 days in filing the motion for extension of time to remove office objections should be condoned.

Analysis: The application to restore the appeal had been allowed earlier on the condition that the office objections be removed within four weeks. The applicant did not comply, and the affidavits filed in support of the present motion did not disclose when the applicant became aware of the non-compliance. The date of knowledge was material because the delay after such knowledge also had to be satisfactorily explained. In the absence of any explanation on this critical aspect, no sufficient cause for condonation was made out.

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

Ratio Decidendi: In an application for condonation of delay, the applicant must explain not only the period of default but also the point of time when non-compliance was discovered and the delay thereafter.

---