Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause: vague explanation for 181 days' delay led to dismissal of the writ appeal.

A writ appeal delay condonation application failed because the explanation for 181 days' delay was vague, unsupported by cogent material, and did not account for the entire period. The affidavit did not show sufficient cause, and the refusal to file an additional affidavit meant the court decided the matter only on the existing averments. Although delay matters may be considered with a liberal, justice-oriented approach, that principle does not remove the requirement of a credible explanation. The application was dismissed, and the writ appeal was consequently dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the writ appeal deserved condonation on the basis of the explanation offered in support of the application.

Analysis: The explanation for the 181 days' delay was found to be vague and unsupported by any cogent material. The affidavit did not furnish a plausible account for the entire period of delay, and the refusal to file an additional affidavit left the application to be decided only on the existing averments. The governing principle that a liberal and justice-oriented approach may be adopted in matters of delay was held not to dispense with the need to show sufficient cause.

Conclusion: No sufficient cause for condonation of delay was made out, and the application was dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed.

---