Condonation of delay requires a reasoned assessment of the explanation, not a merits review at the threshold.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the explanation in the condonation application was accepted as sufficient. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's refusal was supported by a cryptic order without adequate reasons, and held that the merits of the appeal should not be examined at the condonation stage. The operative principle was that, where delay is satisfactorily explained, the court should address condonation independently of the substantive merits, and relief should not be declined without reasoned consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was held to have been explained on the basis of the averments in the application for condonation. The impugned order was found to be cryptic, and the High Court was held not to have given adequate reasons while declining relief. The merits of the appeal were not to be gone into at the stage of condonation of delay.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

---