COLLECTOR, HOOGHLY Vs. NIRMAL SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. It appears that a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court recorded a finding that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and, consequently, it dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. S.L.P. (C) No.21298 of 2000 filed against the said order of the High Court was disposed of by this Court on 8th January, 2001, in the following terms:

(2.) FROM a bare reading of the aforesaid order, it would be clear that this Court was, prima facie, of the view that the High Court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. Thereafter, a review application was filed before the High Court. There was delay of nine days in filing the review application after calculating the period of limitation from the date of order passed in the special leave petition. However, the High Court dismissed the review application on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay and calculating period of limitation from the date of original order dismissing the appeal to be barred on limitation. It also held that the finding recorded in the earlier order that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay did not suffer from any error apparent from the record.