Directory procedural rules can justify condonation where appeal papers were timely sent through a representative

The procedural requirement for presenting an appeal was treated as directory, not rigidly exclusionary, so filing through a representative did not invalidate acceptance where the papers were otherwise sent within limitation. A liberal construction was adopted to ensure that procedural rules advance justice rather than defeat it, and the absence of any further sufficient cause against relief did not bar condonation. The delay was therefore condoned and the appeal was admitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in presenting the appeal should be condoned where the appeal papers were sent within limitation but were not filed in the prescribed mode.

Analysis: The procedural requirement for presentation of an appeal was held to be directory rather than rigidly exclusionary. A liberal construction was adopted, and the expression relating to presentation in person was treated broadly so that filing through a representative would not invalidate acceptance of the appeal. The absence of any other sufficient cause against the delay did not prevent relief, as procedural rules were viewed as meant to advance justice and not defeat it.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeal was directed to be admitted.

---