Liberal condonation of delay requires a pragmatic view of sufficient cause, with substantial justice prevailing over technical objections.

Applications for condonation of delay must be assessed on a liberal, pragmatic view of sufficient cause, especially where the explanation is supported by medical evidence. The Court reiterated that substantial justice should prevail over technical objections, that a litigant does not ordinarily benefit from delay, and that late filing does not by itself create any presumption of deliberate delay or mala fides. On that basis, the refusal to condone the delay was set aside and the appeal was directed to be treated as within time and decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been condoned on the ground of sufficient cause.

Analysis: The delay was explained by illness supported by medical certificate. The Court applied the principles governing "sufficient cause" and emphasised that a litigant does not ordinarily benefit by delay, that refusal to condone can defeat a meritorious matter at the threshold, and that the expression must receive a rational, common-sense and pragmatic construction. The Court held that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that there is no presumption of deliberate delay or mala fides merely because the appeal was late.

Conclusion: The delay ought to have been condoned and the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application.

Final Conclusion: The order refusing condonation was set aside and the appeal was directed to be treated as within time and decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Applications for condonation of delay must be decided on a liberal, pragmatic interpretation of sufficient cause, with preference for substantial justice over technical objections where the delay is not shown to be deliberate or mala fide.

---