AHSANUL HAQUE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition has been filed in respect of order dated 28.11.2014 passed by this Court in M.C.C. No. 2401/2014 whereby, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the applicant (appellant in Second Appeal No. 791/2007) for condonation of delay in filing M.C.C. No. 2401/2014 for restoration of Second Appeal No. 791/2007 was dismissed and consequently M.C.C. No. 2401/2014 also stood dismissed, as being time barred.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this review petition may brief be stated thus: The second appeal no. 791 of 2007 filed by applicant Ahsanul Haque was posted before the Court on 26.10.2007 for orders in default of payment of process fee. Since, no one appeared on that date on behalf of the appellant, a peremptory order to the effect was passed that the appellant shall pay P.F. within a period of seven days, failing which the second appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the bench. No P.F. was filed during the stipulated period of seven days. Consequently, the second appeal stood dismissed. After a lapse of about seven years, M.C.C. No. 2401/2014 was filed for restoration of the second appeal. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 2527 days was also filed along with application for restoration of second appeal. The application was dismissed by this Court on 28.11.2014. Consequently, M.C.C. No. 2401/2014 also stood dismissed as time barred.

(3.) IN this review petition, it has been submitted on behalf of the counsel for the applicant/appellant that due to oversight learned counsel for the appellant missed the second appeal No. 791/2007 in the cause list for 26.10.2007; therefore, he could not appear on that date on behalf of the applicant. Since he did not appear before the Court on that date, he was not aware that a peremptory order had been passed. Consequently, no P.F. was filed in compliance with the peremptory order. Learned counsel for the applicant was all the while under the impression that the second appeal is yet to be listed. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that he was not negligent in prosecuting the second appeal but he kept contacting his counsel, who assured him that second appeal is still pending. He was given to understand that in the year 2007 the second appeals from the year 1989 were being listed and his second appeal would take another 6 -7 years to be listed. Since, the appellant is illiterate; therefore, he could not search out the status of his case on the website of the High Court. On 28.10.2014, learned counsel for the appellant inquired from the Registry regarding the status of second appeal; whereon, he was informed that the second appeal already stood dismissed on 26.10.2007.