ORDER NO. 10 DT. 17.1.12

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

          The record is placed today for passing necessary orders in respect of an application for condonation of delay (for 473 days) in filing the present Appeal by the Appellant on the grounds stated therein.  The main contention of the Appellant in the application for condonation of delay is that the Appellant in spite of its best efforts could not file the Appeal within the statutory period.  According to the Appellant, the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.  While explaining the sufficient cause the Appellant has tried to make out a case that from the very beginning, i.e. from date of passing of the impugned judgement namely 14.9.09, the Appellant took proper and appropriate steps in collecting the certified copy of the impugned judgement and handing over the same to a lawyer.  Unfortunately, though the Appellant had to move from door to door to different lawyers, but none of them accommodated the Appellant in the matter of preparation and filing of the present Appeal.  While describing such story the Appellant has mentioned as many as five Ld. Advocates’ names, namely Mr. Sudip Kr. Guha, Mr. Debesh Kr. Halder, Mr. Purna Ch. Maity, Mr. Sujay Kr. Basu and Mr. Ajoy Chatterjee.  In the meantime, according to the Appellant, some time was also consumed by an Advocate’s clerk namely Mr. Tarun Kr. Das.  According to the Appellant, except Mr. Ajoy Chaterjee, Ld. Advocate, all other Advocates including the Advocate’s clerk did nothing but consumed the entire period of 473 days without any benefit to the Appellant.  According to the Appellant, it is Mr. Ajoy Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate who was prompt in filing the present Appeal on 31.12.10.  But unfortunately by that time 473 days was consumed from the date of delivery of the impugned judgement.  According to the Appellant, such delay was not intentional and that there was no laches or lacuna on the part of the Appellant in causing such delay, which may kindly be condoned.

          At the time of hearing the Appellant has cited the decisions reported in AIR 1997 DELHI 147 and AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1353.  While elaborating his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has urged before us that different courts of this country including Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has enunciated in a number of decisions that courts should adopt liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay and that when there is no fault on the part of the applicant, rather the applicant had to depend upon others, the delay, if so caused, should be condoned.

          We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have also gone through the materials on record and also considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, according to whom, the application for condonation of delay has got no merit and the same should be rejected. 

From the materials on record including that of the averments made in the condonation of delay application we find that by way of sufficient cause the Appellant has taken a plea that it had approached a number of Advocates, who instead of helping the Appellant in the matter of filing the present Appeal has contributed accumulation of delay in the matter of filing the present Appeal and nothing else.  Unfortunately, in our opinion, such sort of plea can never help the Appellant in any manner whatsoever, even if a liberal approach is adopted in this regard.  Having considered the present matter in the light of above observation we find no merit in the present Application for condonation of delay, which is liable to be dismissed.

          Hence, it is ORDERED that the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost.  Consequently,  the Appeal also stands dismissed being time-barred.