The court found that although the applicant's current advocates were properly on record by virtue of a filed consent, and that eviction would cause substantial loss by rendering the applicant homeless, the application for stay of execution was filed five months after the lower court's judgment. This delay was deemed inordinate and contrary to the requirement that such applications be made without unreasonable delay under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and that responsibility for timely prosecution of the case ultimately rests with the litigant, not the advocate. Consequently, the application was dismissed solely on the ground of unreasonable delay.