Limitation Act principles may justify condonation when a party diligently pursues a bona fide wrong remedy before filing a statutory appeal.

The Commissioner, acting as appellate authority under Section 12-D(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was treated as a statutory appellate authority and not a court in the strict constitutional sense. The Limitation Act did not apply to the appeal merely through Section 29(2), but the principles underlying Section 14 could be used where a party had bona fide and diligently pursued a wrong forum. Because the appellant first approached the writ court promptly after cancellation and then filed the appeal, the delay was attributable to good-faith pursuit of an incorrect remedy. The delay was therefore validly condoned, and the challenge to that condonation failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner, acting as appellate authority under Section 12-D(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, could condone delay in filing the appeal by applying the Limitation Act, 1963, or by applying the principles underlying Section 14 thereof.

Analysis: The appeal under Section 12-D(2) lies before the Commissioner as a statutory appellate authority and not as a court in the strict constitutional sense. In the light of the Supreme Court's exposition on the scope of the Limitation Act, the provisions of Section 29(2) do not, by themselves, extend the Limitation Act to quasi-judicial bodies. However, the principle underlying Section 14, namely exclusion of time spent bona fide and with due diligence in pursuing a wrong remedy, can be applied to advance justice where the prior proceeding was prosecuted in good faith and failed for want of jurisdiction or a similar cause. The respondent had promptly pursued a writ remedy after the order of cancellation and thereafter moved the appeal; the delay arose from bona fide pursuit of the wrong forum.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was entitled to condone the delay by applying the principles underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The writ challenge to the condonation order failed.

---