Bona fide mistake of counsel can justify condonation of delay when the wrong appellate forum is chosen without mala fides.

A bona fide mistake of counsel as to the proper appellate forum, based on valuation, can amount to sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was wrongly presented in the District Court, but the memorandum disclosed the relevant valuations and the record showed no concealment, mala fides, or attempt to defeat limitation. The Court treated the counsel's conduct, including a revision filed on the same mistaken footing and the effect of a local rule on appeals in suits for accounts, as confirming a genuine misapprehension. The refusal to extend time was therefore unsustainable, the delay was liable to be condoned, and the matter was remitted for hearing according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in presenting the appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on account of a bona fide mistake of counsel as to the proper forum of appeal determined by valuation.

Analysis: The appeal was filed in the District Court on an erroneous valuation, although the memorandum itself disclosed both the suit valuation and the appellate valuation. The error was not shown to be a device to defeat limitation or to conceal any material fact. The conduct of the counsel, including the filing of a revision on the same mistaken footing, indicated a genuine misapprehension of the forum, reinforced by a local rule relating to appeals in suits for accounts. The material before the Court showed no mala fides and no underhand attempt to save limitation; the High Court had therefore approached the question from the wrong angle in refusing to extend time.

Conclusion: The delay ought to have been condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the refusal to do so was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for hearing and disposal according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide mistake of counsel, when not tainted by mala fides or an attempt to evade limitation, can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

---