State instrumentalities are not favoured litigants and must establish bona fide grounds for delay.

The appeal challenged an order dated 14 February 2022. The appellant sought condonation of a delay of approximately 1,233 days in filing it

It attributed the delay first to uncertainty over whether the beneficiary of the acquisition or the acquiring body should appeal, followed by internal communications and office reshuffling after the Howrah Improvement Trust’s merger with the KMDA

The appellant applied for a certified copy on 6 October 2023, obtained it on 24 November 2023, and later attributed further delay to an advocate’s clerk’s failure to act and the misplacement of papers in another advocate’s chambers

The appeal was ultimately filed on 25 July 2025.

1. Whether the appellant demonstrated bona fide and sufficient grounds to condone the delay of approximately 1,233 days in preferring the appeal

2. Whether the appeal could proceed once condonation of the delay was refused

The court applied the principle that delay should not be condoned absent a plausible explanation and demonstrated bona fides, including diligence in pursuing the remedy.

It also stated that the State and its instrumentalities are not to be treated as favoured litigants.

The court found the appellant’s explanation inadequate. Uncertainty about which entity should appeal did not provide a valid explanation for the delay; the appellant’s subsequent inaction in obtaining the certified copy, followed by explanations attributing delay to a clerk and another advocate, was characterised as vague and frivolous.

Taken together, the asserted circumstances failed to establish bona fides or diligence, and offered no plausible reason to excuse the 1,233-day delay.

Consequently, it dismissed MAT 1168 of 2025 as time-barred; there was no order as to costs.