SANKAR BISWAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, which according to the Stamp reporter of this Court, was 4 days, but the answering Respondents claimed such delay to be much more.

(2.) It would appear that on or about 25th September 1984, in Civil Rule No.13194 (W) of 1983 (Sankar Biswas v. State of West Bengal), the learned trial Judge, after overriding the orders as passed by other Division Benches of this Court, had directed as under :-

(3.) When the application was taken up for consideration on 28th Feb. 1985, the points as mentioned hereinbefore, having been taken by the answering Respondents before us, we had requested the Stamp reporter of this Court, to give a comprehensive report, after giving his reasons as to how the appeal was stated to be presented out of time by four days and not more than those days as claimed by the answering Respondents. The Stamp reporter, after hearing the parties and considering their submissions before him, on 25th Mar. 1985, has reported that the office remained open on Saturday the 27th Oct. 1984, but according to him, that fact would not make any difference, in view of the decision in the case of Bhaya Lal Saha v. Smt. Ranu Bala De (1972) 76 Cal WN 778. That was a determination by the learned Division Bench, on a reference being made by Amiya Kumar Mookerjee, J. as his Lordship then was, since his Lordship felt that there was conflict of opinions in this Court on the applicability of the "Maxim de minimis non curat lex". It would be apparent that at the time of hearing, the petitioners before the Division Bench, made no reference to that Maxim at all, but contended that the deposit made on 17th Jan. 1966, as made in that case, should be deemed to be one required to be made on 15th Jan. 1966, inasmuch as the Court did not sit for the whole day on 15th Jan. which was a Saturday. Their Lordships of the Division Bench, on facts, have found that the defendants were under statutory obligation of depositing the rent month by month under S.17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. They deposited the rent for Dec. 1965 on 17th Jan. 1966, instead of depositing it on 15th Jan. 1966. The Court did not sit for the whole day on 15th Jan. which was a Saturday and on such facts, it has been held that the deposit made on 17th Jan. should be deemed to be deposited in the discharge of the defendants' statutory liability under S.17 of the Act, by reasons of the Explanation to S.4 of the Limitation Act 1963. In view of such observations, the Stamp reporter has further recorded that the contentions of the learned Advocate for the Respondents were not appropriate and tenable.