Allowed

Rabinkumar Ghosal & Ors. v. Asit Kumar Biswas

Calcutta HC3 Dec 2019SA/85/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a condonation of delay application and restored a second appeal dismissed for default. The court found justification for the delay due to settlement talks and pandemic restrictions but awarded costs to the respondents.

What did the court decide?

CAN 5 of 2024 restored to original file and number; appellants to pay Rs. 20,000 costs to respondents.

Rabinkumar Ghosal & Ors. Vs Asit Kumar Biswas — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2019)

¶1

AD-03 Ct No.16 26.02.2025 TN

¶2

SA 85 of 2018 IA No: CAN 3 of 2017 (Old No: CAN 8694 of 2017) CAN 4 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 5045 of 2018) CAN 5 of 2024 CAN 6 of 2024

¶3

Sri Rabin Kumar Ghosal and others Vs.

¶4

Asit Kumar Biswas, since deceased, replaced by Jamuna Rani Biswas and others

¶5

Mr. Sandip Das

¶6

….for the appellants

¶7

Mr. Debasis Sur, Mr. Himadri Sh. Paul

¶8

….for the respondents

¶9

In re: CAN 5 of 2024 CAN 6 of 2024

¶10

CAN 6 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing CAN 5 of 2024, the latter being a restoration application.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the matter got dismissed for default on December 03, 2019. It is submitted that the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants had missed out the matter in the list. Thereafter, on April 28, 2020, the wife of the appellant no.1, who had been all along looking after the case, died, upon which the appellant no.1 suffered from serious mental depression, for which he is still bedridden.

¶12

¶13

Later on, the appellants came to know from rumours in the locality, where the respondents also live, that the appeal had been dismissed and thereafter the son of the appellant no.1, the present deponent, came to the court and learnt about the dismissal. It is further submitted that a talk of settlement continued for several months even after the dismissal for default and there was an assurance on the part of the respondents that the matter was likely to be settled, which was another reason why the appellants had not taken information in the meantime about the appeal.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that proper explanation for the delay has not been furnished. Moreover, the period of delay has not been mentioned.

¶15

Although learned counsel for the respondents, in his usual fairness, submits on instruction that talks of settlement were going on between the parties, however, it is submitted that the prolonged delay of several years in filing the present application ought not to be condoned.

¶16

Upon a careful perusal of the averments made in the application, we find that there is some justification in the appellants not taking information of the matter in the meantime in view of the talks of settlement going on between the parties. Furthermore, the period during the Pandemic restrictions ought also to be

¶17

¶18

deducted as per the several orders of the Supreme Court in that regard.

¶19

Also, the non-mention of the exact number of days of the delay is not fatal to the condonation application.

¶20

On an overall consideration of the averments made in the application, we find that sufficient cause has been made out for the condonation of delay in filing the restoration application as well as for restoring the appeal to its original file and number.

¶21

However, due to the suffering of the respondents and the harassment caused to them for the condonation of delay and the restoration of the appeal being filed after a prolonged period spanning several years, during which valuable rights have accrued in favour of the respondents because of the dismissal of the appeal for default in the interregnum, the respondents ought to be compensated by costs.

¶22

Accordingly, CAN 6 of 2024 is allowed, thereby

¶23

condoning the delay in filing CAN 5 of 2024. CAN 5 of 2024 is also allowed on contest, thereby recalling the order dated December 03, 2019, whereby SA 85 of 2018 had been dismissed for default, and restoring the said second appeal to its original file and number, subject to costs of Rs.20,000/- being paid by the appellants to the respondents within a fortnight from date.

¶24

¶25

It is made clear that in default of such payment, the above order shall stand automatically recalled without further reference to the court.

¶26

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶27

(Uday Kumar, J.)

Rabinkumar Ghosal & Ors. v. Asit Kumar Biswas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabinkumar Ghosal & Ors. v. Asit Kumar Biswas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Barun Lama & Anr. Vs the Mahabodhi Society of India

Sail (Isp), Burnpur, Sail Vs Bibekananda Majhi & Ors.

Sail (Isp), Burnpur, Sail Vs Dina Bandhu Majhi & Anr.

Ashok Sarkar Vs Pasupati Sarkar Since Deceased Rep by Heirs

The Secy Bankura Zilla Mm Sangha Vs Jayashree Burman

Manoj Kumar Dutta Vs Sm Jyotsna Mullick & Ors.