Tamal Sarkar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Tamal Sarkar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 4 days condoned and CAN 2 of 2025 allowed; impugned order dated March 10, 2025 set aside; W.P.A. 31090 of 2024 remanded to the learned Single Judge with liberty to mention for early hearing; affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks after reopening of the Court and reply within two weeks thereafter; M.A.T. 545 of 2025 and connected CAN 1 of 2025 disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 4 days in making and filing the appeal should be condoned. +2 more

Court's answer

It is trite law that a litigant need not suffer due to the mistakes of an advocate; the mistake here is bona fide.

Ratio / Principle

The causes shown for the delay are accepted and the delay of 4 days is condoned.

Key takeaways

CAN 2 of 2025 is allowed.ratio¶18
Respondent no. 2 is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India (stated as a premise; not necessary to the disposal, which rests on the absence of an opportunity to file affidavits).obiter¶23
Whether the impugned letter of respondent no. 2 is arbitrary is required to be decided in the writ petition (question left open for decision on remand).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - appeal filed with 4 days' delay due to the learned advocate's mistake in calculating limitation; litigant need not suffer for advocate's bona fide mistake; delay condoned and CAN 2 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 allowed. Appeal heard finally by consent. Writ challenge in W.P.A. 31090 of 2024 to a letter issued by respondent no. 2 (an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution) regarding a contract of eight years earlier; whether the letter is arbitrary left to be decided in the writ petition. Impugned Single Judge order dated March 10, 2025 set aside as passed without permitting the parties to file affidavits; writ petition remanded to the learned Single Judge - affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks after reopening of the Court, reply two weeks thereafter; liberty to mention for early hearing. M.A.T. 545 of 2025 and CAN 1 of 2025 disposed of without costs. (Debangsu Basak, J.; Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. concurring.)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

M.A.T. 545 of 2025

Tamal Sarkar & Ors.

vs.

The Union of India & Ors. With CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

For the Appellants : Mr. S.P. Dalapati Mr. Asumdipta Santra Mr. Rahul Chatterjee For the Union of India : Mr. Dhruv Surana For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr. Somnath Gangopadhyay Heard & Judgment on : May 14, 2025

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

CAN 2 of 2025 is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

seeking condonation of delay of 4 days in making and filing of the appeal.

Respondents are represented.

2

Delay is sought to be explained on the ground of mistake in calculating the period of limitation by the learned advocate.

It is trite law that a litigant need not suffer due to the mistakes of an advocate. Mistake apparently is bona fide.

In such circumstances, we accept the causes shown in the application for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned.

CAN 2 of 2025 is allowed.

By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

It is submitted at the bar that the impugned order was passed without permitting the parties an opportunity to file affidavits.

Challenge in the writ petition relates to a letter issued by the respondent

no. 2 in respect of a contract which was entered into between the writ petitioner and the respondent no. 2 eight years ago.

Respondent no. 2 is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Whether or not, the impugned letter of the respondent no. 2 is arbitrary is required to be decided in the writ petition. According to the respondent no. 2, the steps were taken in accordance with law. In support of such contention, respondent no. 2 seeks to rely upon various documents.

3

In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the order impugned since the same was passed without affording the parties one opportunity of filing of affidavits.

Impugned order dated March 10, 2025 is set aside.

W.P.A. 31090 of 2024 is remanded for hearing before the learned Single Judge.

Let affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition be filed within two weeks

after reopening of the Court. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

The parties are at liberty to mention before the learned Single Judge for an early hearing.

M.A.T. 545 of 2025 and the connected application being CAN 1 of 2025 are

disposed of without any order as to costs.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

I agree

S.D. ( Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. )