No. 5/23.09.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Ved Sharma, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Mr. Dhruba Brata Basu, the Ld. Advocate are present.  The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent files Vokalatnama today.

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal.  The impugned judgement has been passed on 05.01.2010.  This appeal has been filed on 22.04.2010.  Thus, there has been delay of about 72 days in filing this appeal.  It has been stated in the above application that the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant who was engaged in the Forum below informed the Complainant about the dismissal of the complaint case on 14.01.2010.  On the self same day the said Ld. Advocate had put in an application for certified copy of the impugned order dated 05.01.2010 and obtained the same on that very day.  On the very next day i.e. on 15.01.2010 the Complainant handed over all the papers to the present Ld. Advocate for filing an appeal before the State Commission.  The present Ld. Advocate thereafter prepared the draft of memo of appeal and handed over the same to the Complainant only on 08.04.2010 after expiry of about three months.  The appeal was thereafter filed on 22.04.201. 

It has merely been stated in the above application that because of the personal difficulties of the present Ld. Advocate the said memo of appeal could not be drafted before 08.04.2010.  We are surprised to find such an explanation by the Complainant.  Admittedly all the  papers were handed over to the Ld. Advocate on 15.01.2010 for filing an appeal.  The said Ld. advocate was fully aware that the time was running out, and if the appeal is not filed within 30 days from the date of the order, the same would be barred by limitation.  In spite of such knowledge the Ld. Advocate allowed the time to pass and the appeal to become time barred.   We are far more surprised to see that a Ld. Advocate knowing fully well that the appeal would be time barred if not filed within the prescribed period of limitation, took about three months time only to prepare the draft of the memorandum of appeal.  The nature of his personal difficulties has also not been disclosed.  If the Ld. Advocate had any personal difficulty for which he could not prepare the memo of appeal within the prescribed period of limitation then he ought to have informed the Appellant and returned the papers for filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.  He did not do so.  On the other hand allowed the appeal to be barred by limitation. 

Be that as it may because of this sheer negligence and laches on the part of the Ld. Advocate as well as the Appellant we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing this appeal.  The Appellant may approach the appropriate forum against his Ld. Advocate if he so desires.  The application for condonation of delay is thus rejected.