Bona fide pursuit of alternate remedy on legal advice justified condonation of delay and exclusion of writ period

Delay in filing the appeal was condonable because the appellants had bona fide pursued a writ remedy on legal advice, and there was no material showing mala fides, gross negligence, utter callousness or dilatory tactics. The period spent in prosecuting that writ petition was therefore rightly excluded for limitation purposes. The order refusing condonation was set aside, subject to costs, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was liable to be condoned and the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition under legal advice was liable to be excluded while computing limitation.

Analysis: The appellants had pursued the writ remedy under legal advice and there was no material to show mala fides, gross negligence, utter callousness or dilatory tactics. In these circumstances, the delay was sufficiently explained and the matter called for application of liberal principles in condoning delay. The period spent in bona fide prosecution of the writ petition deserved exclusion for the purpose of limitation.

Conclusion: The delay was condonable and the exclusion of the writ period was justified. The order refusing condonation was set aside, subject to payment of costs, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the litigant has bona fide pursued an alternate remedy under legal advice and no mala fides or deliberate negligence is shown.

---