MINTU CHOWDHURY Vs. HARIPADA SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also the record so made available before this Court, during the course of hearing, it is apparent that the appellate court called the matter twice on 14.02.2019 and since learned counsel did not appear, the application was dismissed in default. Learned counsel has explained the reasons and the circumstances for such non-appearance. It is explained that the matter was fixed only for the purposes of filing objection to the application seeking condonation of delay and the presence of the counsel would not have mattered for the appellant, who was to file rejoinder to the objection, which was never filed. In any event, clerk of the counsel was there, who informed the dismissal of the application whereafter immediately remedial steps were taken by the learned counsel.

(3.) The judgment of the trial Court was delivered on 19.07.2018. Application for obtaining certified copy was immediately filed and copy delivered on 02.08.2018. On 03.08.2018, the learned counsel expressed his desire to the appellant for consulting another advocate, which he did the following day. The said learned counsel, took some time to prepare the appeal, which was eventually filed on 20.08.2018, after inspecting and reconstructing the entire record. The delay, if any, is not attributable to the appellant. He has been diligently pursuing the matter at all times.