No. 2/12.04.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Heard Mr. Aloke Mukhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate for the Apellant and the Respondent appearing in person.  After hearing the parties we find that the appeal was filed stating that delay of 437 days has occurred under circumstances as stated in the application.  On consideration of the statement made in the application we find that the same has not been prepared giving appropriate explanation.  Initial period of delay allegedly was on the ground of delay at the instance of Sri Gopal Mondal Advocate who was engaged after seeing an advertisement in the newspaper though lawyers do not advertise.  But it is unfortunate that the lawyer has advertised and the Appellant has allegedly fallen in the trap.  But subsequent explanation on the ground of illness of one Sri Amalesh Goswami stated to be the owner of M/s. Goswami Motors has been stated but the documents in support of such ailment as Annexure – ‘B’ are in respect of a patient named Sri Arup Sarkar.  As no fact has been stated in the application explaining the said inconsistency we are unable to take into consideration the same as an acceptable explanation.  In the circumstances though the Advocate who according to the Appellants caused harm to them it appears that the Appellants have not taken only step against the said Advocate before any appropriate authority.  Moreover, after 15.06.2009 when the said Ld. Advocate returned the papers, further period of about eight months remained unexplained in the circumstances stated hereinabove.  Accordingly as we find that explanations are neither acceptable nor sufficient, the application is dismissed.  Appeal accordingly stands dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.