Santosh Banerjee Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Santosh Banerjee Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Causes shown for condonation of the 210-day delay accepted; order dated March 5, 2025 of the learned Tribunal set aside; MA 400, 401 of 2017 allowed; OA 1570 of 2014 restored to its original file and number; learned Tribunal requested to hear and dispose of OA 1570 of 2014 on merits in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the causes shown for condonation of the 210-day delay in making and filing the application for restoration of OA 1570 of 2014 should be accepted, given that no medical prescription was produced in support of the claim that the Advocate was ill. +1 more

Court's answer

Courts are required to be lenient while considering an application for condonation of delay, and the fault of the Advocate should not befall the litigant.

Ratio / Principle

Although the learned Tribunal was right that no evidence was produced in support of the claim of the Advocate's illness, on the principle that the fault of the Advocate should not be foisted upon the litigant, the Court deems it appropriate to accept the causes offered by the writ petitioner in the application for condonation of delay.

Key takeaways

The order dated March 5, 2025 passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside; the applications being MA 400, 401 of 2017 are allowed; and OA 1570 of 2014 is restored to its original file and number.ratio¶19
The learned Tribunal is requested to hear and dispose of OA 1570 of 2014 on merits in accordance with law.¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPLRT 90 of 2025 (decided 23.06.2025): Santosh Banerjee v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. — writ petition against the order dated March 5, 2025 of LRTT in MA 400,401 of 2017 (OA 1570 of 2014), by which the Tribunal had refused to condone a 210-day delay in making and filing an application for restoration, because the Advocate produced no medical prescription in support of the claim that he was ill. OA 1570 of 2014 had been dismissed for default on August 17, 2016 when the Advocate did not appear. Holding that courts are required to be lenient while considering an application for condonation of delay and that the fault of the Advocate should not befall or be foisted upon the litigant, and finding the litigant to have proceeded diligently, the Court accepted the causes offered notwithstanding the absence of supporting evidence, set aside the impugned order, allowed MA 400, 401 of 2017, restored OA 1570 of 2014 to its original file and number, and requested the Tribunal to hear and dispose of it on merits in accordance with law. Coram: Debangsu Basak, J. and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. WPLRT 90 of 2025 disposed of accordingly.

DL-67

23.06.2025 Court No.26 (AD)

WPLRT 90 of 2025

Santosh Banerjee Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. Manisa Mandal, Advocate

Ms. Babita Pramanick, Advocate

… for the petitioner

Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Ld. Sr. Govt. Advocate Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Advocate

… for the State respondents

Writ petition is directed against the order dated March 5, 2025 passed in MA 400,401 of 2017 (OA 1570 of 2014) of LRTT.

By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal was pleased not to accept the causes shown in the application for condonation of delay in making and filing the application for restoration. The learned Tribunal noted that, the delay was 210 days. The explanation offered was not accepted by the learned Tribunal since learned Advocate did not produce any medical prescription in support of the claim that the learned Advocate was ill.

State is represented.

We remind ourselves that, Courts are required to be lenient while considering an application for

2

condonation of delay. Moreover, fault of the Advocate should not befall the litigant.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apparent that the litigant was proceeding diligently. He engaged an Advocate for the purpose of conducting his case. The Advocate unfortunately did not appear on August 17, 2016 when the original application was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the Advocate took 210 days for the purpose of making and filing an application for restoration. The explanation offered is that, the learned Advocate was ill at that material point of time.

Although, the learned Tribunal was right in observing that, there was no evidence produced before the learned Tribunal in support of the claim of such Advocate, nonetheless, on the principle that, the fault of the Advocate should not be foisted upon the litigant, we deem it appropriate to accept the causes offered by the writ petitioner in the application for condonation of delay.

In such circumstances, we set aside the order dated March 5, 2025 and allow the applications being MA 400, 401 of 2017. We restore OA 1570 of 2014 to its original file and number.

Learned Tribunal is requested to hear and dispose of OA 1570 of 2014 on merits in accordance with

3

law.

WPLRT 90 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)