Condonation of delay failed where prolonged default lacked credible explanation and showed no due diligence.

Condonation of a 318-day delay in filing appeals was refused because the appellants failed to show sufficient cause for the entire period of default. The asserted family difficulties lacked a satisfactory factual basis, and the claim that financial inability prevented payment of court fee was not found credible. Although sufficient cause is to be construed liberally, the approach does not excuse a prolonged and unexplained delay or make limitation ineffective. The conduct was treated as reflecting indolence and lack of due diligence rather than a bona fide inability to appeal in time, and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 318 days in filing the appeals was liable to be condoned on the basis of sufficient cause.

Analysis: The delay was substantial and the explanation offered was found inadequate. The asserted family difficulties were not supported by a satisfactory factual foundation for the entire period of default, and the claimed financial inability to arrange court fee was not convincing. The governing approach to condonation requires liberal construction of sufficient cause, but such liberality does not dispense with a credible explanation for the prolonged delay or permit limitation to be rendered ineffective. The conduct disclosed indolence and lack of due diligence rather than a bona fide inability to appeal within time.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeals were dismissed.

---