Opinion Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion is a short judicial order concerning a challenge where there was a delay in taking a required step; the court was asked to consider whether that delay constituted sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act and whether the Rule should be made absolute. The opinion resolves that procedural application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, under the circumstances of the case, the delay was bonâ fide and constitutes "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. Whether the Rule should be made absolute and what costs should follow.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis is concise. It examined the circumstances presented and concluded that the delay was bonâ fide. On that basis the court found that "sufficient cause has been shown within the provision of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act." The opinion contains no extended factual findings or legal elaboration beyond this conclusion.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Rule made absolute.

Costs were ordered: "Costs one gold mohur will be costs in the cause."

Implications: The direct effect is that the Rule has been made absolute and the specified costs are payable. The opinion does not set out broader legal reasoning or establish a new precedent beyond its application of section 5 to the facts before the court.