Order No. 12 date: 19-01-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition of the Appellant.

It is the case of the Appellant that, he applied for certified copy of the impugned order dated 05-02-2016 before the Ld. District Forum on 12-02-2016 and obtained the same on 15-02-2016.  Thereafter, he was suffering from various ailments for which he could not consult his Ld. Counsel in Kolkata for long.  After recovering from illness to some extent, he approached the Ld. Advocate on 30-07-2016.  Ultimately, the Appeal was filed on 12-08-2016.

We have heard the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates of the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 and gone through the material on record.

According to office calculation, there is a delay of 157 days in filing this Appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation. 

It is firstly contended by the Appellant that although he applied for the certified copy of the impugned order on 12-02-2016, the same was handed over to him only on 15-02-2016.  However, perusal of the certified copy of impugned order reveals that the same was made ready for delivery by the Ld. District Forum on the very day of receiving such application from the Appellant.  However, it was the Appellant himself who collected it from the Ld. District Forum on 15-02-2016.  It is noteworthy that the Appellant did not contradict such fact while collecting the same from the Ld. District Forum.

It is also curious to note that immediately after taking delivery of the certified copy of impugned order, he fell ill.  From 13-02-2016 to 29-07-2016 is 167 days or 5 months 16 days.  If we consider the sheer duration of such alleged illness of the Appellant, no doubt, it was a major illness.  However, not a solitary piece of prescription/treatment sheet, medicine bill, test reports is furnished on record to establish such fact.  In fact, the Appellant has even not mentioned the nature of his ailment that allegedly confined him to bed for such prolong period of time.

In all, none of the explanation given by the Appellant appears to be ‘sufficient cause’ that is otherwise imperative to illustrate to justify delayed filing of an Appeal.

In view of this, we are not inclined to allow this petition.  Consequent thereof, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.