Bona fide counsel error in computing limitation period can justify condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.

A bona fide mistake by counsel in calculating the limitation period can amount to sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay here arose only because the advocate incorrectly noted the last filing date, and the explanation was supported by affidavit and not disbelieved. The Court treated the error as distinct from negligence and accepted that the party had acted through the University and left the matter to counsel. Refusal to condone the two-day delay was therefore incorrect.

---

---

Issues: Whether a delay of two days in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on account of the advocate's mistaken calculation of the limitation period.

Analysis: The delay was found to have occurred solely because counsel for the party interested in filing the appeal had incorrectly noted the last date for filing. The explanation was supported by affidavit and was not disbelieved. A bona fide mistake in calculation by a lawyer was treated as distinct from negligence, and such a mistake was held to constitute sufficient cause for condonation. The circumstances also showed that the party really concerned had acted through the University and had left the matter to its counsel, so the explanation could not be rejected merely because the Government had not separately accounted for the delay.

Conclusion: The delay ought to have been condoned, and the refusal to do so was incorrect.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide mistake by counsel in computing the limitation period can constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

---