562 of 2025 Two appeals are taken up for analogous consideration as they emanate out of the same impugned order.

In both the appeals, there are applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 .

Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent who is stated to be the promoter opposes the prayer for condonation of delay. He submits that adequate explanation does not appear from the application for condonation of delay and that there are defects in the appeals as noted by our order dated June 30, 2025.

Learned advocates appearing for the other respondents in addition to the objections raised by the private respondent draw the attention of the Court to the pleadings in the application. It is also pointed out that there are certain typographical errors.

Court is concerned not with the quantum of the delay but with the quality of the explanation. Court are also to be required to be lenient in considering the request for condonation of delay.

In the present case, the appellants claim that they on receipt of the notice under the Contempt of Court’s Act decided to prefer the appeal. The explanation is that subsequent to the knowledge of the contempt notice, they sought to prefer