Bona fide prosecution of a review application may justify exclusion of time when assessing sufficient cause for delay condonation.

Delay in filing the appeal could be condoned where the appellant had bona fide prosecuted a pending review application and acted with reasonable diligence. The period spent in pursuing that proper remedy was relevant to sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and exclusion of that time could bring the appeal within limitation. The refusal to condone delay was set aside, and the delay petition was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned by excluding the period spent in prosecuting a bona fide and pending review application.

Analysis: The application for review was found to be bona fide and within jurisdiction, and the time spent in prosecuting that remedy was relevant to the question of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The governing test was whether the appellant had acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the remedy, and whether, after excluding the period spent in a proper review application, the appeal would be within limitation.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the delay petition in accordance with law.

---