Disposed¶38

Kalipada Gorai v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC13 May 2025WPLRT/49/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (LRTT); M.A. 1232 of 2023; O.A. 2165 of 2022; certified copy application stamp kept blank; delay in filing Original Application condoned; Tribunal order set aside; O.A. remitted to Tribunal for decision on merits; Kalipada Gorai v. State of West Bengal; W.P.L.R.T. 49 of 2025; Calcutta High Court; disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order set aside; delay in making and filing O.A. 2165 of 2022 condoned; Tribunal directed to hear and dispose of O.A. 2165 of 2022 on merits; disposed of without any order as to costs. ¶38

Kalipada Gorai Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing O.A. 2165 of 2022. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Relevant portions of the stamp which processes the application for certified copy are kept in blank in the certified copy of the order dated February 7, 2022 available on record.

¶33

Key takeaways

It is not possible to hold finally that the petitioner did not apply for certified copy of the order within time, or that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Tribunal by way of the Original Application filed on July 6, 2022.ratio¶33
The impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the condonation application is set aside.ratio¶35
Delay in making and filing O.A. 2165 of 2022 stands condoned, and the Tribunal is to proceed to hear and dispose of O.A. 2165 of 2022 on merits.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition directed against the order dated February 14, 2025 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in M.A. 1232 of 2023 (O.A. 2165 of 2022) (LRTT), rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay. The petitioner had sought to assail an order dated February 7, 2022; he applied for certified copy on December 20, 2021 and again on April 19, 2022, received the certified copy on May 13, 2022, and filed the Original Application on July 6, 2022. The certified copy on record showed that relevant portions of the stamp processing the certified-copy application were kept in blank; the Court therefore held it was not possible to conclude finally that the petitioner applied late for certified copy or delayed approaching the Tribunal. Holding that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the condonation application, the Court set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay in making and filing O.A. 2165 of 2022, and directed the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the Original Application on merits. W.P.L.R.T. 49 of 2025 disposed of without any order as to costs. Bench: Debangsu Basak, J. and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

¶1

13.05.2025 Item No.20 Ct. No.26 CHC (disposed of)

¶2

W.P.L.R.T. 49 of 2025

¶3

Kalipada Gorai Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Uttiya Ray, Advocate

¶6

…for the petitioner

¶7

Mr. Sk Md. Galib, Sr. Govt. Advocate

¶8

Mr. Manish Biswas, Advocate

¶9

…for the State

¶10

Mr. Saugata Mitra, Advocate

¶11

Mr. Somenath Ghosh, Advocate

¶12

Mr. Nikhil Kr. Gupta, Advocate

¶13

Ms. Soma Chakraborty, Advocate

¶14

…for the private respondents

¶15

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court be taken on record.

¶16

Writ petition is directed against order dated February 14, 2025 passed in M.A. 1232 of 2023 (O.A.2165 of 2022) (LRTT) by the West Bengal Land Reforms and

¶17

Tenancy Tribunal.

¶18

By the impugned order, learned Tribunal was pleased to reject the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶19

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, petitioner sought to assail an order dated February 7, 2022 in O.A. 2165 of 2022. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, application for certified copy of such order was made on December 20, 2021 as also on April 19, 2022. He

¶20

refers to the certified copy issued on May 13, 2022

¶21

¶22

and submits that, essential dates on which, the application for certified copy was made, the date of assessment of the folios, the date for payment of the folios and such details were kept blank. Only the quantum of money required to be paid was assessed. He submits that, the Original Application was filed on July 6, 2022 after receiving certified copy on May 13, 2022.

¶23

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Original Application is within time, since, statute permit two months to file the Original Application directed against the order dated February 7, 2022. Since, the application for certified copy was already on record and the certified copy of the order impugned was received on February 13, 2022, there was no delay in making and filing the Original Application before the Tribunal on July 6, 2022.

¶24

State and the private respondents are represented.

¶25

Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that, application for condonation of delay does not contain material particulars for condonation of delay. He submits that, day to day explanation is not given. His clients were not added as party respondents in the Original Application.

¶26

In response to the query of the Court, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents

¶27

¶28

submits that, he applied for addition of party in the Original Application which was allowed.

¶29

Application for addition of party of the private respondents was allowed prior to the disposal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. One plausible view is that, the Tribunal, considered the condonation of delay and was pleased to arrive at a finding that, there was no delay and therefore, allowed the application for addition of party.

¶30

Be that as it may and without entering into such arena we assess the application for condonation of delay on its merits.

¶31

The order impugned in the Original Application is dated February 7, 2022, in the proceeding which resulted in the order dated February 7, 2022. The writ petitioner was participating at the hearing of such proceeding which was concluded much prior to February 7, 2022. Apprehended that, an order would be passed the writ petitioner applied for certified copy thereof on December 20, 2021 after conclusion of hearing of the proceedings. Thereafter, since the petitioner did not receive the certified copy of the order dated February 7, 2022, reapplied for certified copy on April 19, 2022. Petitioner received the certified copy of the impugned order dated February 7, 2022 on May 13, 2022.

¶32

¶33

Photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated February 7, 2022 as made available on record demonstrate that relevant portions of the stamp which processes the application for certified copy are kept in blank. In such circumstances, it is not possible to hold finally that, the petitioner before us did not apply for certified copy of the order dated February 2, 2025 within time or that, there was a delay on the part of the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by way of Original Application on July 6, 2022.

¶34