No. 6/02.07.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Rupak Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate, Respondent No. 1 through Mr. N. B. Maity, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 2 through Mr. Dipak Kr. Sil, the Ld. Advocate are present.  On behalf of the Appellant a prayer has been made for adjournment.  On behalf of Respondents it is contended that the matter has been delayed for a long time at the instance of the Appellant and thus the Respondents are suffering prejudice.  We have considered the Order Sheets and we also find that the matter has been already delayed and adjournments had to be granted on number of occasions.  In the circumstances the prayer for adjournment is rejected.

We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the parties and we have considered the application and objection filed by the parties.  We find from the application for condonation that the appeal was fled against the order dated 02.07.2008 and the explanation has been given from the date of obtaining certified copy i.e. 16.01.2009.  The subsequent period has been explained stating the personal difficulty of the Ld. Advocate which we feel is acceptable.  But unfortunately the long period between the end of the limitation period and the obtaining certified copy has remained unexplained.  It has not been also stated how the order came to be known to the Appellant and in what circumstances it was not learnt nor the certified copy was obtained.  The certified copy itself shows that it was obtained on 16.01.2009.  Therefore, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever for such a long period upto the date of obtaining certified copy, we are unable to condone the delay even taking a liberal view as the said period has remained unexplained.  Therefore, it is not a case considering the sufficiency of the explanation for the delay but it is a case of no explanation at all.  In the circumstances the application is dismissed.  Appeal accordingly stands dismissed.