Repeated delay explanation rejected as insufficient cause; condonation refused and contrary order set aside.

Repeated reliance on an explanation for delay that had already been judicially rejected and attained finality could not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of a 1116-day delay in filing the appeal. The Court held that a party cannot re-agitate the same grounds through a different procedural route after an earlier reasoned refusal, and that equitable considerations cannot override the failure to explain delay properly. It also found the High Court misapplied N. Mohan because the factual position there was materially different on service of summons and participation in the suit. The refusal to condone delay was therefore upheld and the contrary order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 1116 days in filing the appeal against the ex parte decree could be condoned on the basis of the reasons already rejected in earlier proceedings and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the First Appellate Court's refusal to condone delay.

Analysis: The Respondents had already invoked the same grounds in earlier proceedings for setting aside the ex parte decree, and those grounds had been rejected in reasoned orders which had attained finality. The explanation offered for the delay in filing the appeal did not disclose any fresh material or distinct cause to justify a different result. The Court held that a party cannot re-agitate the same explanation for delay under a different procedural route after it has already been found insufficient. The Court also found that the High Court misapplied the decision in N. Mohan because the factual setting there was materially different, particularly on service of summons and participation in the suit. In matters of limitation, the explanation for delay must first satisfy the test of sufficient cause, and equitable considerations cannot override a failure to explain delay properly.

Conclusion: The condonation of delay was rightly refused and the High Court's contrary order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order condoning delay was set aside, leaving the refusal to condone the delayed appeal in force.

Ratio Decidendi: A delay cannot be condoned on repeated reliance upon the same explanation that has already been judicially rejected and attained finality, and sufficient cause must be independently established before a court may exercise discretion under the limitation law.

---