Extension of period in certain cases. Any appeal or application for a revision or a review of judgment or for leave to appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable by or under any enactment for the time being in force may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor, when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation.___ The fact that the appellant or applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period of limitation may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.

— Condonation of delay — Scope — Wrong legal advice does not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of law. [PLR 2025 SC 9 = PLD 2025 SC 60 = 2024 SCP 383]

14. Exclusion of time of proceeding Bona fide in Court without jurisdiction.__(1) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal, against the defendant, shall be excluded, where the proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(2)   In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

Explanation I.___In excluding the time during which a former suit or application was pending, the day on which that suit or application was instituted or made, and the day on which the proceedings therein ended, shall both be counted.

Explanation II.___For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding.

Explanation III.___For the purposes of this section misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction.

— S. 14 — Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction — Scope — Where a party, despite acting with reasonable diligence, is misled by the court or fails to receive timely guidance about jurisdictional matters, the resulting delay or error is not entirely attributable to that party. [2025 SCLR 9 = 2025 SCMR 64 = 2024 SCP 345]

— S. 14 — Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction — Appeal filed before a court lacking jurisdiction — Scope — Case involved respondent filing an appeal before a court that lacked pecuniary jurisdiction — Despite this, the court entertained the appeal for a significant period without raising the issue, contributing to the delay — This situation falls under the doctrine of contributory negligence, where both the appellant and the court were responsible for the procedural misstep — Citing the principle that “an act of the court shall prejudice no one,” the court upheld the condonation of delay, affirming that procedural lapses by the court should not deprive a litigant of their legal rights. [2025 SCLR 9 = 2025 SCMR 64 = 2024 SCP 345] 

— Suit for which no period of limitation is provided — Scope — The limitation period of six years for a suit for declaration begins to run when the right to sue accrues. [PLR 2025 SC 3 = PLD 2025 SC 24 = 2024 SCP 384]