Bona fide filing in the wrong court on counsel's advice can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

A bona fide appellant who filed an appeal in the wrong court on counsel's advice showed sufficient cause for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court applied the settled principle that condonation depends on the facts of each case and must advance the ends of justice, while also respecting that accrued limitation rights are not to be disturbed lightly. On the material before it, the appellant was found free from negligence and lack of bona fides, and the erroneous forum choice was treated as a consequence of mistaken legal advice. The delay was therefore excused and relief under Section 5 granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in filing the appeal could be excused under Section 5 of the Limitation Act when the memorandum of appeal was presented in the wrong court on the advice of counsel.

Analysis: The delay arose because the appellant, acting bona fide, relied on the advice of a pleader of standing and filed the appeal in the District Judge's Court instead of the High Court. The Court considered the settled principle that the discretion under Section 5 must be exercised on the facts of each case and should further the ends of justice, while also recognising that accrued limitation rights are not to be lightly disturbed. On the material before it, the Court accepted that the appellant had not acted with negligence or lack of bona fides, and that the wrong filing was due to erroneous legal advice rather than any deliberate default.

Conclusion: The delay was held to be sufficiently explained and the appellant was entitled to relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide litigant who acts on erroneous legal advice may show sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, though no rigid rule can be laid down that every mistake of counsel will automatically justify condonation.

---