Condonation of refiling delay requires specific, credible explanation; routine clerical difficulties are insufficient without supporting particulars.

Condonation of refiling delay requires a specific, credible and material explanation showing sufficient cause and due diligence; generalized claims of re-pagination, re-scanning, re-typing, annexure compilation or record retrieval are inadequate without a defect sheet, chronology or supporting particulars. In insolvency matters, expedition and finality remain important, but a liberal approach applies only where unavoidable circumstances are factually established. On the facts stated, the explanation was held insufficient and the 112-day refiling delay was not condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown to condone 112 days' delay in re-filing the appeal.

Analysis: Condonation of refiling delay depends on a satisfactory and specific explanation showing that the delay was beyond the applicant's control. Routine assertions regarding re-pagination, re-scanning, re-typing, compilation of annexures, and retrieval of records, without a defect sheet, date-wise chronology, or material particulars, do not establish due diligence. In insolvency matters, expedition and finality remain important, but a liberal approach applies only where the explanation is supported by facts showing unavoidable circumstances.

Conclusion: The explanation was held insufficient, and the delay was not condoned.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of refiling delay requires a specific, credible, and material explanation demonstrating sufficient cause and due diligence, and generalized logistical or administrative difficulties are inadequate unless shown to have genuinely prevented timely curing of defects.

---