Condonation of refiling delay requires a defect-wise explanation and diligence; unexplained delay led to rejection of the appeal memo.

Condonation of a 193-day refiling delay requires a coherent, defect-wise and date-wise explanation showing sufficient cause, even though the standard is applied with liberality. The explanation here was held unsatisfactory because the defects flagged by the Registry were generic and the applicant was already aware of the handwritten and vernacular documents filed with the appeal, yet did not cure the defects diligently despite repeated s. The method of excluding the seven-day curing period from each defect cycle was also rejected as an incorrect way to compute delay. The delay was therefore not shown to be beyond the applicant's control, and condonation of refiling delay was refused; the appeal memo was also rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the 193-day delay in refiling the appeal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: Condonation of refiling delay is to be approached with liberality, but the applicant must still furnish a coherent, defect-wise and date-wise explanation showing sufficient cause. The explanation offered for the major period of delay was found unsatisfactory because the defects noticed by the Registry were generic and illustrative, the applicant was already aware of the handwritten and vernacular documents filed with the appeal, and repeated opportunities to cure the defects were not used with due diligence. The attempt to reduce the delay by excluding the seven-day curing period from each round of defects was also rejected as an incorrect method of computation. The stated reasons did not establish that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the applicant's control.

Conclusion: The delay was not sufficiently explained and the application for condonation of refiling delay was rejected, with the appeal memo also rejected.

---