ORDER NO. 6 DT. 23.04.2012

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

          The record is placed today for passing necessary orders in respect of an application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant/Petitioner.  The main contention of the application for condonation of delay, in brief, is that after the impugned judgement dt. 22.7.09 was passed, the Appellant after applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment got the same on 14.8.09.  Unfortunately, the conducting advocate on behalf of the Appellant advised the Appellant/Petitioner not to prefer any appeal against the impugned judgement.  Thereafter on 10.9.09 the Appellant contacted another advocate for second opinion, who advised the petitioner to obtain an opinion from a solicitors’ firm in Kolkata regarding the matter.  According to the Appellant/Petitioner, after some pursuance ultimately in December, 2009 the Appellant could contact an advocate of a solicitors’ firm, who discouraged the Appellant in preferring the present appeal.  Thereafter in the month of February, 2010 the Appellant contacted an advocate at Raiganj to deal with the matter, who advised the Appellant to prefer an appeal.  Unfortunately, since thereafter the Appellant fell sick on two occasions and could contact his advocate after Puja vacation in the month of November, 2010.  Thereafter the matter was referred to another advocate in the month of January, 2010 for preferring an appeal.  The Appellant got all papers ready.  But, unfortunately, in the meantime, the complainant/Appellant had lost the certified copy of the order which got misplaced from the custody of the previous advocate.  Thereafter, as there was vacation in the Hon’ble High Court at Kolkata, some time was consumed and there was a mishap in the family of the appointed learned advocate on behalf of the Appellant, which prevented the advocate from taking steps on behalf of the Appellant.  Finally on 1.10.11 the matter was handed over to the Ld. Advocate, Mr. Ritabrata Banerjee, who advised the Appellant to obtain a fresh certified copy of the impugned order which was applied for on 12.10.11 and finally the Appeal was filed on 2.11.11 thereby causing a total delay of 821 days.  According to the Appellant, after deducting the statutory period of 30 days and holidays it comes to 741 days.  The Appellant has prayed for condonation of such unintentional delay, which, according to the Appellant/Complainant, has been caused for no fault or laches on the part of the Appellant and the Appeal deserves condonation of delay for proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties.

          At the time of hearing the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant was present, but none was present on behalf of the Respondents.  The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted before us that from the materials on record it would be evident that there was no intentional laches and/or lacuna on the part of the Appellant in preferring the present Appeal, which is out of time by 741 days.  According to the Ld. Advocate, as the situations were adverse to the Appellant, the Appellant in spite of best efforts was prevented from filing the present Appeal within the statutory period.  According to the Ld. Advocate, when the delay has been properly explained day by day, the same may kindly be condoned so as to enable the Appellant to fight out his case before this appellate court.

          We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner and have also gone through the materials on record including the application for condonation of delay.  On a careful perusal of the application for condonation of delay we find that the Appellant has tried his best to cover this long period of delay, i.e. 741 days, by taking up various sorts of pleas.  But, unfortunately, we are unable to accept those pleas and, in our opinion, there is practically no cogent and reasonable explanation in support of such huge number of days’ delay in preferring the present Appeal.  Having considered the present matter in the light of above observation we are unable to accept the proposition so put forward by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Appellant and accordingly, we are of the view that there is practically no merit in the present application for condonation of delay, which is liable to be dismissed.  In the result, the application for condonation of delay fails.

          Hence, it is ORDERED that the application for condonation of delay is dismissed ex parte without any order as to cost.  Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.