Condonation of delay failed where unexplained inaction and gaps in chronology did not establish sufficient cause under the Limitation Act.

Delay of 179 days in filing the appeal was not condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because the affidavit failed to explain the long gap before seeking legal opinion and did not satisfactorily account for the further delay after the opinion and permissions were obtained. The chronology disclosed prolonged inaction and unexplained intervals, so the reasons advanced were not treated as sufficient cause. The application for condonation was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The affidavit did not explain the long gap between the date of the order and the first attempt to seek legal opinion, nor did it satisfactorily account for the further delay after the opinion was received and permissions were obtained. The chronology showed prolonged inaction and unexplained intervals, and the reasons offered were not treated as sufficient cause for condonation.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay was rejected. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

---