Strict limitation and insufficient cause defeat condonation where prolonged inaction and vague explanations remain unexplained.

Delay in filing and refiling a revenue appeal was rejected for want of sufficient cause. The explanation was found vague, inconsistent with the record, and unsupported by any plausible account of the prolonged inactivity, so the delay could not be excused. The Court applied the settled principle that limitation must be enforced strictly and that condonation is not a matter of right. Departmental inaction and failure to take timely corrective steps weighed against relief, and the applications for condonation were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing and refiling the revenue appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The applications for condonation were rejected because the explanation offered was vague, inconsistent with the record, and unsupported by any plausible account of the long period of inactivity. The Court applied the settled principle that limitation must be enforced strictly, and that condonation is not a matter of right. In the absence of sufficient cause, the delay could not be excused, particularly where the departmental conduct showed prolonged inaction and failure to take timely corrective steps.

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

---