Condonation of delay accepted where timely steps were taken and counsel's lapse was not attributable to the appellant

A seven-day delay in filing an appeal was condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because the appellant had taken timely steps, obtained sanction, forwarded papers to counsel, and deposited the required amount within time. Although the certified copy initially showed an incorrect overwritten date, the record and affidavits supported the explanation. The unexplained lapse arose only after the papers had been handed over to counsel, and the appellant was not shown to have been negligent. Delay caused by counsel or his office was therefore not visited on the appellant, and condonation was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seven-day delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained so as to justify condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The certified copy was initially found to contain an incorrect overwritten date, but the record and affidavits showed that the appellant had taken timely steps, obtained sanction, forwarded papers to counsel, and deposited the required amount within time. The unexplained lapse occurred after the papers were handed over to counsel, and the appellant was not shown to be negligent. In such circumstances, the delay attributable to the counsel or his office could not be visited on the appellant.

Conclusion: The delay was sufficiently explained and condonation was warranted in favour of the appellant.

---