BHAKTIPADA MAJHI Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER KALNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan, condoning the delay in filing the opposite party's appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) The petitioner obtained a money decree against the opposite party in a money suit. The opposite party preferred an appeal against the said decree but the said appeal was filed 23 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, an application, purported to be under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was filed, praying for condoning the delay on the ground that the records of the case along with certified copies of the judgment and decree which were received late, could not be sent to the Government Pleader in time for filing the appeal through sheer oversight of the dealing assistant. The learned Additional District Judge considered the above ground shown as sufficient and the-delay of filing the appeal was condoned. The petitioner, being aggrieved against the said order, moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.

(3.) Mr. Mukheriee, appearing for the petitioner in support of the Rule, contended that the learned Additional District Judge had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in condoning the delay in the instant case inasmuch as no sufficient cause has been made out for not filing the appeal within tune. He further contended that the delay covered by the period between the last day prescribed for filing the appeal and the day on which the appeal was actually filed, has not been explained. Accordingly, the opposite party's application for condoning the delay ought to be dismissed on that ground alone. In support of his contentions, Mr. Mukherfee referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramlal v. Rewa Coal Fields.