What is the test for determining whether a counsel's mistake constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? What are the criteria used to assess whether a mistake of counsel is bona fide or a device to cover up laches or save limitation? What factors lead to dismissal of an application for condonation of delay where the period expired and the applicant failed to explain delay day by day?

Key Points: - The court held that a mistake of law by counsel may be considered but must be bona fide and not a device to cover up laches or save limitation (!) - The decision applies the reasonable man test to determine whether the delay was due to bona fide mistake or not (!) - The appellant’s lack of explanation for days after the explicit expiry of the limitation period led to dismissal of the condonation application and the appeal (!) - The appellant’s multiple consultations with lawyers after learning the correct forum were found to be inaction or negligence, not sufficient cause (!) (!) (!) - The judgment states that once the period expires, the appellant must explain delay day by day; failure to do so weighs against condonation (!) (!)

What is the test for determining whether a counsel's mistake constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

What are the criteria used to assess whether a mistake of counsel is bona fide or a device to cover up laches or save limitation?

What factors lead to dismissal of an application for condonation of delay where the period expired and the applicant failed to explain delay day by day?