SRI TAPAN SATPATI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant/petitioner praying for condonation of 323 days dalay in preferring second appeal against the Judgement and decree dated 8th July, 2015 passed in Title Appeal No. 33 of 2014 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court at Contai, Purba Medinipore affirming the Judgement and decree dated 17th June, 2014 passed by the First Additional Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Contai, Purba Medinipore in Title Suit No. 18 of 2012.

(2.) Before dealing with the application in hand for disposal, it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent/opposite party as plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of licensee against the defendant/appellant. The said suit being Title Suit No. 18 of 2012 was decreed on contest by the learned Trial Judge on 17th June, 2014. The defendant/appellant/petitioner challenged the said Judgement and decree in appeal and the first appeal was dismissed on contest. Against the concurrent finding of fact the defendant/appellant has preferred the instant appeal after 323 days' delay from statutory period of limitation. It is stated by the petitioner in his petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner in First Appellate Court did not inform him about the date of delivery of Judgement which was fixed on 8th July, 2015. Only on 28th July, 2016, the petitioner came to know about delivery of Judgement and he requested his lawyer's clerk to obtain certified copy of the impugned Judgement and decree on 2nd August, 2016. The certified copies of Judgement and decree were made ready for delivery on 5th August, 2016 and it was handed over to the petitioner on 16th August, 2016. Ultimately, on 24th August, 2016 the appellant was able to file the memorandum of appeal before this Court along with the instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is submitted by Mr. Manna, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner did not know about the date of delivery of Judgement passed by the First Appellate Court. He was completely dependent upon his learned Advocate who did not inform him the date of delivery of Judgement and that a lapse of about one year he came to know that the Judgement was delivered by the First Appellate Court affirming the Judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. Immediately, after getting such information he took step for obtaining certified copy of the impugned Judgement and decree and preferred the appeal. According to the petitioner, delay which was caused for preferring the appeal was due to the laches of the learned Advocate for the petitioner appearing before the First Appellate Court.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Manna that the petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring the appeal which he elaborately explained in his petition. "Sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism and justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining everyday's delay. In support of his contention Mr. Manna refers to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal -Vs.- Rabindranath Bhattacharyya and Ors., reported in 2009 (3) CHN Cal 474.