Allowed¶19

Ashok Kumar Show & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Karmakar

Calcutta HC13 Feb 2024CO/4766/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court; Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.; order dated 10.12.2024; C.O. 4766 of 2016; CAN 1/2024; CAN 2/2024; restoration of revisional application dismissed for default; recall of dismissal order dated 13.02.2024; condonation of delay of 206 days; section 5 Limitation Act; lack of knowledge of dismissal for default; change of advocate; Ashok Kumar Show v. Sri Gopal Chandra Karmakar; matter listed 03.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 206 days condoned; order of dismissal dated 13.02.2024 recalled; revisional application C.O. 4766 of 2016 restored to its original file and number; CAN 1/2024 and CAN 2/2024 disposed of; matter directed to appear in the list on 3rd January, 2025. ¶19

Ashok Kumar Show & Ors. Vs Gopal Chandra Karmakar — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

10.12.2024

¶2

Sl. No. 22 Ct.No. 236 Amalranjan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVFISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

C.O. 4766 of 2016 With CAN 1/2024 with CAN 2/2024 Ashok Kumar Show and ors. Vs Sri Gopal Chandra Karmakar

¶5

Mr. Animesh Paul Ms. Susmita Ghorai

¶6

…for the petitioners

¶7

Mr. Sanjib Seth

¶8

…for the opposite party

¶9

Re: CAN 1/2024 with CAN 2/2024

¶10

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioners is taken on record.

¶11

Learned advocates for the petitioners and the opposite party are present.

¶12

Heard the learned advocates for the parties.

¶13

This is an application for recalling the order of dismissal dated 13.02.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court.

¶14

The petitioners have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitations Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 206 days.

¶15

It is the contention of the petitioners that on 13.02.2024 when the matter was taken up there was non-appearance of the learned advocate for the petitioners which was not within the knowledge of the petitioners.

¶16

¶17

It is further contended that the petitioners on 05.10.2024 came to know about the order of dismissal passed on 13.02.2024. The petitioners have thus prayed for condonation of delay and recalling of the order dated 13.02.2024. Although, no affidavit-inopposition has been filed to the application for restoration, but the learned advocate for the opposite party objects to the prayer of the petitioners and submit that the delay is not sufficiently explained.

¶18

Upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties, this court is of the view that as the petitioners did not have any knowledge of dismissal for default and after the said dismissal the petitioners has changed his learned advocate, in the interest of justice, the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in C.O. 4766 of 2016 should be recalled after condoning the delay.

¶19