Condonation of delay denied where prolonged inaction and incorrect legal advice did not justify a time-barred revision.

Delay in filing a revision was not condoned because the applicant offered no sufficiently credible explanation for prolonged inaction, and no condonation application accompanied the revision when it was filed. Incorrect legal advice was held insufficient on these facts, particularly where the applicant was a commercial entity expected to act promptly after the earlier remedy failed. The Court applied the law of limitation strictly and held that liberal indulgence in such circumstances would undermine its object; the revision was therefore rejected as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the revision should be condoned under the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The revision was filed long after the earlier proceedings had been dismissed and no application for condonation accompanied the revision when presented. The explanation based on incorrect legal advice was not accepted as sufficient, particularly because the applicant was a commercial entity and was expected to act promptly once the earlier remedy had failed. The Court held that liberal indulgence in such circumstances would defeat the object of the law of limitation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the revision was rejected as time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay requires a sufficient and credible explanation, and incorrect legal advice does not automatically justify prolonged inaction, especially where the litigant is a commercial entity expected to act with diligence.

---