Satisfactory explanation for delay is required for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

ORDER

1. The SLP from which this civil appeal arises was filed after a delay of 246 days. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing, without noticing the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules in regard to the condonation of delay, this Court on 12-7-2000 condoned the delay ex parte and granted leave. On 2-4-2002 when the respondent appeared before the Court, a preliminary objection was raised that condonation of delay is contrary to the Supreme Court Rules. Therefore, this Court called upon the appellant to file an additional affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. The appellant has thereafter filed the additional affidavit on 1-5-2002 explaining the delay. For this application the respondent has filed counter pointing out that explanation given by the appellant even in the additional affidavit does not explain the delay satisfactorily nor has the appellant been diligent in filing the appeal.

2. We have today heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the respondent and having considered the reasons given for condonation of delay in the original affidavit as well as in the additional affidavit filed by the appellant, we are not satisfied that the appellant has satisfactorily explained the delay in preferring this appeal. Therefore, accepting the contention of the respondent we revoke the leave granted on 12-7-2000. Consequently, this special leave petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.