The main legal point established is that the delay in filing an appeal may be condoned under S.5 of the Limitation Act if 'sufficient cause' is shown, and if the delay was caused while pursuing a statutory remedy 'bona fide' and without laches.

1. This petition is filed under S.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1026 days in filing the above appeal in this Court. (In the CMP., the delay is wrongly stated to be of 1018 days). The facts that led to the filing of this petition are as follows: Ist defendant in O.S. 170 of 1977 is the appellant in the appeal and the petitioner in CMP. No. 5449/1982. Originally, the suit was filed by the plaintiff, in forma pauperis for specific performance of an agreement dated 30-5-1972 executed by the 1st defendant as modified by subsequent agreements dated 2-6-1972 and 30-9-1972 agreeing to sell 100 acres of land for Rs.70,000/- in Sy. No. 1/1 Puthupadi Amsom. In the alternative, plaintiff prayed for recovery of a sum of Rs 1,15.001/-as damages for breach of contract from the defendants jointly, in the suit. The plaintiff was given possession of the entire property. He cleared wild-growths, constructed roads and obtained forest pass to cut and remove timber from 50 out of 100 acres. He entered into an agreement with a stranger to sell timber trees. On 15-10-1972 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendants 2 to 5 and granted permission to use and occupy 25 acres of land for tapioca cultivation for one year. Defendants 2 to 5 were to pay 1/4 of the produce and surrender possession after the period. They did not pay. Surrender of this portion of the property was also prayed for. The Ist defendant was laid up from 20-10-1972 to 17-1-1973. During this period he carried on negotiations with defendants 2 to 5. Plaintiff was not aware of the same. The application filed in forma pauperis, OP. 17 of 1975, was allowed on 4-8-1977. The Ist defendant did not contest the pauper application. He filed a written-statement, instead of filing objections to the pauper application in February, 1977. The application having been allowed on 4-8-1977, it was numbered as OS. No. 170 of 1977, Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode. In the pauper application, summons was served on the 1st defendant. Along with the summons relating to the pauper application a copy of the plaint was sent. When the pauper application was allowed and it was numbered as a suit, OS. No. 170 of 1977, a fresh summons was sent, but it was not accompanied by a copy of the plaint. Under Order V R.2, the summons should be sent along with a copy of the plaint. It was not so done. The issues were framed in the suit on 31-1-1978. The summons in the suit was received by the 1st defendant on 29-9-1977. He did not appear. He has reasons for not doing so. He was declared exparte on 26-10-1977. An exparte decree was passed against the 1st defendant on 17-11-1978. He came to know of the exparte decree only on 12-7-1979 when he received notice from the execution court. He contacted Advocate Mr. Bhaskar, who appeared for him in the forma pauperis proceedings, on 13-7-1979. A petition under Order IX R.13 CPC., numbered as IA 2927 of 1979, was filed on 17-7-1979 to set aside the exparte decree dated 17-11-1978. After vicissitudes, the said I.A. 2927/79 was finally dismissed on 7-9-1982. In the meanwhile, before the disposal of LA. No. 2927/79, on 8-12-1981 the Ist defendant filed the above appeal, A.S. 88 of 1982, in this court from the exparte decree itself dated 17-11-1978. By way of abundant caution, he also filed C.M.A. 202 of 1982 in this court from the order refusing to set aside the exparte decree, passed in IA. No. 2927 of 1979 dated 7-9-1982. According to the 1st defendant the petitioner, the delay of 1026 days (wrongly stated as 1018 days) in filing the above appeal from the exparte decree was caused due to reasons beyond his control. The various events that resulted in the delay in filing the above appeal have been catalogued in Paras 2 to 8 of the affidavit dated 8-12-1981 filed in support of the petition. The petitioner has also filed a reply-affidavit dated 2-7-1984 reiterating the averments made in the earlier affidavit Along with the reply-affidavit, aff