ORDER NO. 5 DT. 9.3.10

Heard Mr. Kazi Nurul Islam, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Petitioner in support of the application and Mr. Arindam Sen, Ld. Advocate for the sole Respondent, opposing the application.  The Appellant has filed a second application as the first application for condonation of delay was lacking any material particulars and substantial period remained unexplained.

The second application filed today (copy served on 5.3.10) has been taken into consideration and it appears that in the explanation after the date 28.7.09 the first date available is 4.12.09.  In between,  vague statements as regards Puja vacation and loss of records have been made without giving any particulars whatsoever.  Undoubtedly we take a very liberal view in respect of delay condonation.  But in the present case there being a very long period remaining unexplained and there being no explanation we are not in a position to take a liberal view.  In the circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  Accordingly, the Appeal also stands dismissed.