Limitation and sufficient cause: unexplained delay and lack of diligence defeated condonation of appeal filing.

Delay of 921 days in filing an appeal was not condoned because the explanation was found unsatisfactory and lacked a reasonable, cogent and bona fide account of the delay. Reliance on pending litigation in another matter and movement of governmental files did not amount to sufficient cause, and the explanation failed to cover the period between the impugned judgment and the start of the lockdown. The Court reiterated that limitation binds all litigants, including the Government, and that condonation requires due diligence. The application for condonation was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 921 days in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was found unsatisfactory because it did not account for the period between the impugned judgment and the commencement of the lockdown. The reliance on pending litigation in another matter and governmental file movement was held not to constitute sufficient cause. The Court applied the settled principle that limitation binds all litigants, including the Government, and that condonation requires a reasonable, cogent and bona fide explanation supported by diligence.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application for condonation was dismissed.

---