LAWS(GAU)-2023-6-133

ANIMUL HOQUE Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER

Decided On June 28, 2023
Animul Hoque Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL MANAGER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. R. Agarwala, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. N. Das, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This is an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 881 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal against the judgment and order dtd. 15/12/2015, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Goalpara, in MAC Case No. 264/2009.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the judgment and award was passed on 15/12/2015, but the applicant came to know about the same only on 18/1/2016 and thereafter, on several occasions, he tried to met his engaged counsel, but he could not met him. However, on 2/5/2016, he was called by his engaged counsel to come to his chamber and asked to apply for certified copy. And, thereafter also, he could not meet him again on several occasions. But, finally, his engaged counsel advised the him to obtain the certified copies and to consult with the counsel from the High Court and accordingly, he tried to meet the counsel for the High Court on many occasions, but due to various reasons, he could not met his counsel and also due to his injuries, he was not in a position to come to the chamber of the counsel and after a long endeavour, he could met the counsel of the High Court only on 04. 01.2017 and accordingly handed over the certified copy to him. The appellant was then asked to go for a discussion on 13/1/2017, but due to his illness, he could not met his counsel on 13/1/2017 and after his recovery, as per advise of the engaged counsel of the High Court, he again consult with his counsel of the lower Court and applied for a fresh certified copy of the judgment and after obtaining the same and also after the long summer vacation of the High Court, he could met his counsel only on 16/7/2018. Thereafter, the concerned advocate of the High Court, after going through the entire records and finding good grounds for appeal, preferred the connected appeal with a delay of 881 days.