Sufficient cause for condonation of delay where appeal papers were timely handed to counsel's office but not filed due to inadvertence.

Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was held to be supported by sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, where the appellant had prepared the papers, arranged the bank draft and delivered them in counsel's office for filing, but the appeal was not actually filed due to inadvertence and a communication gap in the advocate's office. The court treated the lapse as attributable to counsel's office rather than the litigant and found that bona fide steps had been taken in time. The refusal to condone delay was therefore unsustainable, the writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the delay stood condoned with a direction to register the appeal, subject to other legal requirements.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The delay was explained as having occurred because the appeal papers, after being prepared and accompanied by a bank draft, were handed over in the advocate's office for filing but were not actually filed by the peon. The explanation showed that the party had taken steps to prosecute the appeal in time and was not responsible for the lapse. The delay was found to have arisen from a communication gap and inadvertence in the advocate's office, and the circumstances furnished sufficient cause for condonation.

Conclusion: The delay ought to have been condoned and the refusal to condone it was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the delay in filing the appeal stood condoned with a direction to register the appeal, subject to compliance with the other legal requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the explanation for delay shows bona fide steps taken to file the appeal in time and the default is attributable to inadvertence or communication failure in counsel's office rather than the litigant, the delay may be condoned for sufficient cause.

---