Condonation of delay requires full and satisfactory explanation; routine file movement without due diligence is not sufficient cause.

Condonation of delay was refused because the appellant failed to explain the entire period of default satisfactorily. The chronology showed that limitation had already expired when the matter came to the authorities' notice, and the subsequent movement of the file was routine and casual rather than diligent. No adequate explanation was given for the delay in reconstructing the file, obtaining technical opinion, and filing the appeal. A liberal approach to limitation did not remove the need for a proper explanation throughout the delay period, so the appeal was barred by limitation and could not be entertained on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The delay was substantial and the chronology showed that once the matter came to the notice of the authorities, limitation had already expired. The movement of the file thereafter was routine and casual, and no adequate explanation was furnished for the delay in taking steps to reconstruct the file, obtain technical opinion, and file the appeal. Mere reliance on a liberal approach to limitation did not dispense with the requirement of a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was not made out and condonation of delay was refused.

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not be entertained on merits and stood rejected as barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking condonation of delay must explain the delay satisfactorily and show due diligence throughout the period of default; routine internal movement of a file without urgency does not constitute sufficient cause.

---