Condonation of delay rejected where misplaced case file explanation failed to cover the entire delay period

A delay of 141 days in filing a revenue appeal was not condoned because the explanation of misplaced and later retrieved case papers did not cover the period after retrieval up to filing. No affidavit or time chart was produced, and mere misplacement of files was treated as insufficient cause. The condonation application was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a delay of 141 days in filing the revenue appeal could be condoned on the ground that the case file had been misplaced and retrieved belatedly.

Analysis: The explanation did not account for the period after retrieval of the file up to the date of filing, and no affidavit or time chart was produced. Repeated judicial authority treated mere misplacement of papers or files as not constituting sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not satisfactorily explained and sufficient cause was not made out; the application for condonation of delay was rejected.

---