Sufficient cause for delay in statutory appeals can justify condonation where bona fide conduct and due diligence are shown.

Delay in filing a statutory appeal may be condoned where the appellant shows sufficient cause supported by bona fide conduct and due diligence. The majority applied a liberal, justice-oriented approach to limitation, accepting explanations based on receipt of the order through counsel, confusion from parallel proceedings, and family difficulties, and held that technical considerations should not defeat a matter fit for disposal on merits. One Member dissented, finding the explanation unsatisfactory and the diligence lacking. The delay was condoned and the appeal was permitted to proceed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was considered in the context of the appellant's explanation that the order had been received through counsel, that there was confusion arising from parallel proceedings under different enactments, and that family difficulties and receipt of the counsel's letter contributed to the late filing. The majority treated the governing test as one of sufficient cause, bona fides, and due diligence, and preferred a justice-oriented and liberal approach to limitation. It was held that technical considerations should not defeat a matter that deserved disposal on merits when there was no indication of deliberate default or culpable negligence.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned.

Dissenting Opinion: One Member held that the appellant had not shown sufficient diligence and that the explanation was unsatisfactory, and therefore declined to condone the delay.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was permitted to proceed on merits after condonation of delay, and the matter was left for further hearing before the Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in a statutory appeal may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown and the explanation reflects bona fide conduct and due diligence, with a liberal approach favouring disposal on merits over technical defeat of the proceeding.

---