Condonation of delay should favour merits where sufficient cause is shown; refusal to hear the appeal was unsustainable.

Applications for condonation of delay should be considered in a justice-oriented manner, because "sufficient cause" is an elastic concept and the law prefers adjudication on merits over technical rejection when the explanation warrants it. The text states that refusal to condone delay can shut out a potentially good cause from being heard, whereas condonation enables the controversy to be decided substantively. On that approach, the delay of about 21 months ought to have been condoned, the refusal was unsustainable, and the appeal was required to be heard on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of about 21 months in filing the appeal before the appellate authority ought to have been condoned.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was considered in the light of the settled principle that applications for condonation of delay should be approached in a justice-oriented manner. The expression "sufficient cause" was treated as elastic, and it was observed that refusal to condone delay may prevent adjudication of a good cause, whereas condonation enables decision of the controversy on merits. The object is to prefer adjudication on merits over technical rejection when the facts justify such approach.

Conclusion: The delay should have been condoned; the refusal to condone was unsustainable and the appeal was required to be heard on merits.

---