Limitation in appeal can yield to a plausible, medically supported explanation, allowing remand for merits consideration.

Delay in filing an appeal may warrant restoration for merits consideration where the appellant shows a plausible, medically supported explanation for the lateness. Although the appellate authority could not condone delay beyond the statutory limit, the High Court held that the explanation of the proprietor's illness was prima facie sufficient and remitted the matter for substantive adjudication. The limitation objection was not allowed to defeat consideration of the appeal on merits, and the first appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal afresh after notice and hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal as time-barred and whether the matter should be remitted for decision on merits despite the limitation objection.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period, but the delay was explained by the illness of the proprietor, supported by medical material. The reason shown was treated as prima facie sufficient. The appellate authority's inability to condone delay beyond the statutory limit was noted, but in the interest of justice the petitioner was considered entitled to consideration of the appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The order rejecting the appeal on limitation was set aside and the matter was remanded to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits without insisting on the limitation objection.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained restoration of the appellate remedy, and the dispute was returned to the first appellate authority for substantive adjudication after notice and hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where delay in filing an appeal is supported by a plausible explanation showing circumstances beyond the appellant's control, the matter may be remitted for consideration on merits notwithstanding the limitation objection, subject to the statutory confines on condonation.

---