Allowed¶27

Robin Cammodeal Pvt. Limited and Anr. v. Andhra Bank and Ors.

Restoration – Writ petition (WPA 3287 of 2011) dismissed for default

Calcutta HC12 Jul 2024WPA/3287/2011

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, WPA 3287 of 2011 (Robin Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. v. Andhra Bank), Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.: condonation of ~360 days' delay in restoration application against dismissal of writ petition for default on 12.07.2024; sufficient cause (applicant's old age and health); Section 5 Limitation Act; (1987) 2 SCC 107 (Mst. Katiji) relied on; delay condoned, writ restored, matter listed after Puja Vacation 2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned (CAN 2 of 2025); restoration application allowed (CAN 3 of 2025); order dated 12.07.2024 recalled and WPA 3287 of 2011 restored to its original file and number; matter listed two weeks after the ensuing Puja Vacation, 2025. ¶27

Robin Cammodeal Pvt. Limited and Anr. Vs Andhra Bank and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of almost 360 days in filing the application for restoration (CAN 3 of 2025) ought to be condoned. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Condonation of delay is a matter of the Court's discretion; the length of the delay is not important, the acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion, and the rule of limitation is not meant to destroy a litigant's rights but to prevent dilatory tactics.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

There was no material to conclude that the petitioner resorted to dilatory tactics to secure wrongful gain; the applicant being an old-aged person who could not file in time due to health issues, the Court was satisfied that 'sufficient cause' existed for not preferring the restoration application within the stipulated time.

¶22

Key takeaways

The application for condonation of delay, being CAN 2 of 2025, is allowed.ratio¶23
The Court was satisfied with the explanation offered for the absence of the learned Advocate when the writ petition was dismissed for default; the restoration application, being CAN 3 of 2025, is allowed.ratio¶26
The order dated 12.07.2024 is recalled and WPA 3287 of 2011 is restored to its original file and number, to be listed two weeks after the ensuing Puja Vacation for 2025.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Restoration — Writ petition (WPA 3287 of 2011) dismissed for default — Condonation of delay of almost 360 days in filing restoration application sought (CAN 3 of 2025) — Held, condonation of delay is discretionary; the length of delay is not important, the acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion; limitation is not meant to destroy rights but to prevent dilatory tactics — Relying on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act receives a liberal construction to advance substantial justice — Applicant's old age and health constituted sufficient cause; no dilatory tactics found — CAN 2 of 2025 and CAN 3 of 2025 allowed; order dated 12.07.2024 recalled; writ petition restored to its original file and number (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.).

¶1

2609 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

FRIDAY

¶4

Court : MB-07 Item : A D-04 Status : DC-OR ID : 266057 AR : NANDY

¶5

WPA 3287 OF 2011 CAN 2 OF 2025 CAN 3 OF 2025

¶6

ROBIN COMMODEAL PVT. LIMITED & ANR. VS.

¶7

ANDHRA BANK & ORS.

¶8

MR.SUDHASATVA BANERJEE, ADVOCATE MR. DEBANGSHU DINDA, ADVOCATE MS. DIBYANJANA DAS, ADVOCATE

¶9

……for the Petitioners

¶10

MS. SOMA KAR GHOSH, ADVOCATE MR. ASUTOSH SINGH, ADVOCATE

¶11

……for the Respondent No. 3

¶12

CAN 2 OF 2025

¶13

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶14

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration, being CAN 3 of 2025.

¶15

Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that there was no intentional laches or negligence on the part of the petitioner. However, due to certain circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, the application could not be filed within the period of limitation prescribed therefor.

¶16

Ms. Kar Ghosh, learned Advocate representing respondent no. 3, opposes such contention. She points out that the petitioner is not a diligent litigant and submits that there is a delay of almost 360 days.

¶17

Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. It cannot be stated that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. The length of the delay is not important; the acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes, a delay of shorter duration may be uncondonable due to the absence of a satisfactory explanation, whereas in other cases, a longer delay may be condoned if the explanation is found to be reasonable. The rule of limitation is not meant to destroy the rights of a litigant. It is intended to ensure that a litigant does not resort to dilatory tactics and seeks his remedy promptly.

¶18

In the judgment reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.), the

¶19

P a g e | 2

¶20

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the expression "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It should be noted that a refusal to condone delay may result in a meritorious matter being shut out at the very threshold of the Court.

¶21

In every case, there may be some lapse on the part of the litigant. However, that alone would not be sufficient to close the doors of the temple of justice against him. The Court must examine whether the litigant resorted to dilatory tactics or was attempting to gain an unlawful advantage by causing the delay.

¶22

In the given case, I do not find any material to conclude that the petitioner resorted to dilatory tactics with an objective to secure some wrongful gain. In the application, it has been stated that the applicant is old aged person and due to his health issue, he could not file this application for restoration within the stipulated time. I am satisfied that ‘sufficient cause’ existed which prevented the petitioner from preferring the application for restoration.

¶23

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay being CAN 2 of 2025 is allowed .

¶24

CAN 3 of 2025

¶25

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, I am satisfied with the explanation offered for the absence of the learned Advocate when the writ petition was dismissed for default.

¶26

Accordingly, the application being CAN 3 of 2025 is allowed.

¶27

The order dated 12.07.2024 is recalled and the WPA 3287 of 2011 is restored to its original file and number.

¶28

WPA 3287 OF 2011

¶29

List the matter two weeks after the ensuing Puja Vacation for the year 2025.

¶30

(PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.)

¶31

P a g e | 3

Robin Cammodeal Pvt. Limited and Anr. v. Andhra Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin Cammodeal Pvt. Limited and Anr. v. Andhra Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Kasivelu Vs Union of India & Ors.

Renuka Bibi Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sutapa Hatai Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Kartick Chandra Das Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indira Nagar Colony Commitee & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Aquib Rouf & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.