Condonation of delay denied for lack of sufficient cause and due diligence in filing the appeal.

Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the appellant's explanation was found insufficient, with no adequate material showing due diligence or efforts to file within limitation. The appeal had been prepared after the limitation period, and repeated absence before the adjudicating authority was treated as further evidence of lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter. The application for condonation was rejected, and the appeal and stay petition consequently did not survive and stood dismissed. The governing principle stated is that delay in filing an appeal will be condoned only where sufficient cause is established through a credible explanation and due diligence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 44 days in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned on the facts stated by the appellant.

Analysis: The explanation for the delay was found insufficient, as the appeal itself was prepared after the limitation period and no adequate material was shown to explain the efforts made to file it within time. The absence of appearance before the adjudicating authority despite several opportunities was also taken as indicating lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: In consequence, the appeal and the stay petition did not survive and stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing an appeal will not be condoned unless sufficient cause, supported by a credible explanation and due diligence, is established.

---