Limitation cannot be saved by time spent seeking separate relief from the Government instead of prosecuting an appeal in the wrong forum.

Time spent in pursuing a request before the Government for separate relief could not be treated as bona fide prosecution of a remedy before the wrong forum for limitation purposes. Because the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period and the appellants were not pursuing an appellate remedy in the wrong forum, the delay could not be excluded. The limitation objection was therefore upheld and the appeal remained time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether time spent in pursuing relief before the Government could be excluded.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period after the Assistant Commissioner's order. The appellants had not been prosecuting an appeal before a wrong forum; they were pursuing a request before the Government for a different relief. That course could not be treated as prosecution of a remedy in the wrong forum for purposes of saving limitation.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was upheld and the rejection of the appeal as time-barred was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on limitation, and the order refusing to entertain it was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Time spent in pursuing a request before the Government for relief cannot be equated with bona fide prosecution of an appeal before a wrong forum so as to defeat limitation.

---