Condonation of delay requires a full and credible explanation; unsupported illness and ignorance claims will not defeat limitation.

An inordinate delay in filing an appeal requires a cogent explanation covering the entire period, and liberal condonation principles cannot cure negligence, inaction, or lack of diligence. General claims of illness, later knowledge of the dispute, and financial constraints were rejected because they were unsupported by convincing material, and the applicant company failed to explain prolonged inaction for the relevant period. No sufficient cause was therefore shown for condonation of delay, the delay application was rejected, and the appeal remained barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of an inordinate delay of 1215 days in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The delay was extraordinary and required a cogent explanation covering the entire period. General assertions regarding illness of the General Manager, alleged ignorance until receipt of later notice, and financial constraints were found unsupported by convincing material. The applicant, being a company acting through multiple officers, failed to explain prolonged inaction from March 2022 to January 2025. The principles governing condonation of delay require satisfactory explanation, and liberal interpretation cannot override statutory limitation where negligence, inaction, or lack of diligence is evident.

Conclusion: No sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay, and the application was rightly rejected. Consequentially, the appeal was held barred by limitation.

---