Limitation Act principles on condonation and copy-exclusion were applied strictly, leaving the appeal barred for unexplained delay.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a credible, bona fide explanation for the entire delay, and mere reference to counsel's mistake or prior admission of an appeal does not justify long unexplained inaction. On the stated facts, the delay in filing the certified copy and seeking restoration was not satisfactorily explained, so condonation was unavailable. Section 12 excludes the time needed to obtain a copy only where the application for the certified copy is made within limitation; because the copy application was itself made after expiry of limitation, exclusion was denied. The applications therefore failed and the appeal remained barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the certified copy of the decree and in seeking restoration of the appeal was liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) Whether the appellants could claim exclusion of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when the application for the certified copy of the decree was made beyond the period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the certified copy of the decree and in seeking restoration of the appeal was liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 5 permits admission of an appeal after the prescribed period only on proof of sufficient cause. The record showed long and unexplained inaction after repeated opportunities and specific directions to file the certified copy and explain the delay. The explanation offered, including reliance on an alleged mistake of counsel and the earlier admission of the appeal, did not account for the prolonged lapse or establish bona fides. Condonation is a discretionary relief and cannot be granted on mere assertion or procedural indulgence.

Conclusion: The delay was not satisfactorily explained and could not be condoned; the issue is decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants could claim exclusion of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when the application for the certified copy of the decree was made beyond the period of limitation.

Analysis: Section 12 excludes time requisite for obtaining a copy only where the party applies for the copy within the limitation period. The authorities relied upon confirm that a litigant who remains inactive throughout the limitation period cannot later seek the benefit of exclusion merely because the court took time in preparing the decree. On the admitted facts, the application for the decree copy was not made within limitation, so the statutory exclusion was unavailable.

Conclusion: The benefit of exclusion under Section 12 was not available; the issue is decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The applications failed for want of sufficient cause and for inability to invoke the exclusionary protection of the limitation law, and the appeal remained barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Exclusion of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act applies only where the certified copy is sought within limitation, and condonation under Section 5 requires a credible, bona fide explanation for the entire delay in preferring the appeal or pursuing restoration.

---