Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause; merits alone cannot override unexplained negligence in filing an appeal.

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal requires proof of sufficient cause under the appellate limitation scheme. A long delay caused by negligence in taking timely steps was not treated as sufficient, and the Tribunal was not obliged to overlook limitation merely because the appeal appeared strong on merits. The Tribunal was therefore justified in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal for want of sufficient cause, and writ interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was bound to condone an 18-month delay in filing the appeal and dispose of the appeal on merits despite the absence of sufficient cause.

Analysis: The appeal before the Tribunal was filed far beyond the prescribed period, and the explanation offered for the delay was found to reflect negligence in taking timely steps rather than a sufficient cause for non-filing within time. The statutory scheme governing appeals required filing within the prescribed period and permitted condonation only on proof of sufficient cause. The existence of a strong case on merits did not justify ignoring the limitation provisions or compel condonation where the delay remained unexplained to the Tribunal's satisfaction.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay and in dismissing the appeal for want of sufficient cause, and the writ petition failed.

Final Conclusion: Interference was declined because the belated appeal could not be entertained in the absence of a legally sufficient explanation for the delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay under the appellate limitation provision requires proof of sufficient cause, and mere merits of the case cannot override an unexplained or negligent delay.

---