https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275584 Delay in filing a second appeal was held to be inordinate and the explanation was not accepted as satisfactory because no supporting affidavit was produced from the son or the vakil's clerk. Order XLI Rule 3A(1) was treated as mandatory, requiring an appeal filed after limitation to be accompanied by an affidavit-supported application showing sufficient cause. A condonation petition filed later did not cure the defect, so the delay was not condoned and the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the procedural requirement. en-us Wed, 20 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Oct 2018 11:54:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275584 Delay in filing a second appeal was held to be inordinate and the explanation was not accepted as satisfactory because no supporting affidavit was produced from the son or the vakil's clerk. Order XLI Rule 3A(1) was treated as mandatory, requiring an appeal filed after limitation to be accompanied by an affidavit-supported application showing sufficient cause. A condonation petition filed later did not cure the defect, so the delay was not condoned and the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the procedural requirement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275584