Bona fide counsel error may justify condonation of delay, while Article 136 interference remains confined to manifest injustice.

A bona fide mistake by counsel may constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act where the error is honestly made and not tainted by mala fides, recklessness, or abuse of process. The text also states that interference under article 136 is exceptional and requires manifest injustice, gross misappreciation, or perversity; on the material described, the merits did not justify such intervention and special leave was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an honestly made mistake by legal counsel can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. (ii) Whether interference under article 136 of the Constitution of India was warranted on the merits of the award.

Issue (i): Whether an honestly made mistake by legal counsel can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: Legal advice may sometimes be wrong, and litigants are entitled to rely on counsel when the advice is sought and given bona fide. The court must examine whether the delay is tainted by mala fides, recklessness, or a mere ruse. Where the error is genuine and there is no indication of improper purpose, the mistake of counsel may amount to sufficient cause for condonation.

Conclusion: The mistake of counsel was held capable of constituting sufficient cause, and the refusal to condone delay was not approved.

Issue (ii): Whether interference under article 136 of the Constitution of India was warranted on the merits of the award.

Analysis: Special leave is not granted as a matter of course. Interference requires manifest injustice, gross misappreciation, or perversity in the findings. On the material available, the merits did not justify exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: No interference under article 136 was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The legal position on reliance upon bona fide counsel error in limitation matters was clarified, but the petitions did not merit special leave and stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide mistake of counsel, honestly made and free from mala fides or recklessness, may constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

---