Under Order XLI Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, an appellant seeking condonation must disclose facts demonstrating sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. Limitation provisions should not defeat a litigant merely on account of a procedural lapse where sufficient cause is established, but the rights accrued to an opposite party on expiry of the prescribed period cannot be lightly disturbed. The court must examine whether the delay is explained by circumstances that genuinely prevented the appeal from being filed. Mere internal movement of a case file among officials or departments, and administrative restructuring or change of counsel, do not constitute sufficient cause. In the present case, the explanation consisted largely of the file's movement between officials and departments over 1204 days and did not account for why the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period. Following the approach in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., the court rejected the argument that governmental machinery or bureaucratic methodology warrants mechanical condonation. The application for condonation was therefore dismissed, and the appeal, being barred by limitation, was also dismissed.
