Condonation of delay under the Limitation Act requires a credible explanation; unsupported medical leave was insufficient here.

Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act depends on the acceptability of the explanation, not merely on the length of delay. A substantial delay places a heavier burden on the applicant to give cogent and credible reasons. The State's explanation that the Law Officer was on medical leave was unsupported by material, and additional delay occurred even after approval to file the revision petition. In the absence of a plausible or satisfactory explanation, the delay was not excused and condonation was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the revision petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The delay was substantial and was not explained satisfactorily. The Court reiterated that condonation depends on the acceptability of the explanation and not merely on the length of delay. Even so, a long delay places a heavier burden on the applicant to furnish cogent and credible reasons. The explanation that the Law Officer was on medical leave was unsupported by material, and the State had already taken considerable time even after approval to file the petition. In the absence of a plausible or acceptable explanation, the delay could not be excused.

Conclusion: The State was not entitled to condonation of delay, and the application for condonation was rejected.

---