Tribunal Denies Appeal Delay Condonation: Importance of Clear Evidence

The Tribunal rejected the appellants' application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing insufficient evidence to support the delay claim. The Tribunal emphasized the need for clear and concrete evidence, highlighting that mere purchase of a draft for fees was not a valid reason for condonation of delay. The lack of clarity in the Vakalatnama and absence of supporting evidence weakened the appellants' case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The decision underscores the importance of establishing valid reasons with substantial proof when seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Analysis:
The appellants filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons such as misplacement of the file due to the renovation of the appellant's Counsel's chamber. The delay was 29 days beyond the prescribed period of three months. The Counsel argued that immediate steps were taken once the file was traced, and a similar issue was pending before the Tribunal. However, the Respondent argued that the application lacked supporting evidence and cited a case emphasizing that mere purchase of a draft for fees is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Vakalatnama, where no date of execution or clear indication of who engaged the Counsel was provided. The application was deemed vague, with insufficient evidence to support the delay claim. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to prove sufficient cause for the delay, leading to the rejection of the application and dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

In summary, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing clear and concrete evidence to support claims of delay in filing appeals. Mere purchase of a draft for fees was deemed insufficient justification for condonation of delay. The lack of clarity in the Vakalatnama and absence of supporting evidence from both the appellants and the Counsel further weakened the appellants' case. The Tribunal's decision to reject the application and dismiss the appeal underscores the necessity of establishing valid reasons backed by substantial proof when seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.

---