Condonation of re-filing delay failed where no sufficient cause explained the delayed cure of defects in appeal papers.

Delay in re-filing an appeal was examined on the basis of whether sufficient cause existed under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Although the appeal had been filed within limitation, the defects were not cured within the prescribed time, and the explanations offered were non-availability of typed pages and the appellant company's authorised representative undergoing treatment. The Court found that these reasons did not constitute sufficient cause for the 166-day re-filing delay. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 166 days in re-filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The appeal had been filed within limitation, but the defects were not cured within the time prescribed under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The explanation offered for the re-filing delay was the non-availability of typed pages and the appellant company's authorised representative undergoing treatment. The Court found that no cause, much less sufficient cause, had been shown to justify the delay.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of re-filing delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

---