Liberal construction of sufficient cause under limitation law allows condonation for bona fide mistake of legal forum.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act was construed liberally, and delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the appellant acted bona fide under an honest mistake of law, provided there was no negligence, inaction, or lack of good faith. The Court noted that presenting the appeal before the wrong forum on professional advice did not automatically defeat relief, and that the discretion under Section 5 depends on the special circumstances of each case. Section 14 was treated as reflecting a legislative policy of indulgence toward a party acting under a bona fide mistake. The order refusing to entertain the appeal was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in presenting the appeal could be excused under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the appellant acted under an honest but mistaken legal belief as to the proper appellate forum.

Analysis: The delay arose because the appellant first presented the appeal to the High Court on professional advice, and only thereafter approached the District Court when the memorandum was returned. The Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 is to be construed liberally where no negligence, inaction, or want of bona fides is attributable to the appellant. It further held that a mistake of law is not, in every circumstance, excluded from constituting sufficient cause, and that the discretion under Section 5 must be exercised with reference to the special circumstances of each case. Section 14 was treated as indicating a legislative tendency to show indulgence to a party acting bona fide under mistake.

Conclusion: The delay could be condoned in an appropriate case of honest mistake made with due care and attention, and the appellate order refusing to entertain the appeal was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: "Sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act receives a liberal construction, and a bona fide mistake of law made with due care may justify condonation of delay depending on the special circumstances of the case.

---