JUDGMENT :

I.P. Mukerji, J.

1. Learned counsel for the appellants sought admission of the appeal APOT 338 of 2023 praying for condonation of delay of 66 days in preferring it and of 58 days in preferring the other appeal APOT 317 of 2023. There was divergence of opinion amongst learned counsel for the parties with regard to the exact delay, the respondents alleging that the delay was a little longer. In any event, the delay in preferring each of the appeals is very marginal.

2. Nevertheless, Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents very seriously opposed the admission of the appeal. He argued that even this marginal delay should not be condoned.

3. A short but most interesting argument made by learned counsel was that an applicant for condonation of delay had to show sufficient cause which prevented him from preferring the appeal or application within time. According to him the applicant was required to show some steps in the prosecution of the matter within the period of limitation. At the time of consideration of the delay in filing the proceeding it had to be declared by the court that the delay was the result of sufficient cause. In this case th