This single-paragraph order dismisses a second appeal filed 50 years after the suit's disposal. The court rejected an oral application for condonation of delay, finding the appellant's claimed lack of knowledge to be vague and absurd.
The Second Appeal filed after half a Century stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.S.A. No.277 of 2006
This Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) has been filed by the son of the Plaintiff No.2 in Title Suit No.255 of 1955 of the Court of the learned Munsif, Bhadrak who was the Respondent No.2 of Title Appeal No.45 of 1955 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore.
The suit had been disposed of by the judgment dated 26.11.1955 and thereafter the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the same having preferred the Appeal, the same was disposed of on 09.08.1956. The Plaintiff No.2, who was the Respondent No.2 in the First Appellate Court having not carried the matter further after disposal of the First Appeal, now his son has filed the Appeal after lapse of fifty (50) years.
Although no application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal has been filed, learned counsel for the Appellant orally moves the same. He has submitted that this Appellant had no knowledge about the earlier litigation and his father was also not told about the result of the First Appeal had no knowledge about the same till his death. He further submits only during first quarter of the year 2006, the Appellant having come to know that the First Appeal
2
filed by his father has been dismissed, he has filed this second Appeal on 14.07.2006.
The above contentions appear to be wholly vague so as to accept even for a moment that the father of the Appellant and this Appellant were prevented by sufficient cause in not preferring the Appeal during the past five decades and that having preferred the First Appeal would take no interest to ascertain its result. It seems wholly absurd.
In view of the above, this Court finds all the reasons to reject the move for condonation of delay at its threshold and consequently, dismiss the Second Appeal filed after half a Century.
Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.
As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020.
………………..
H
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second appeal filed after fifty years without an application for condonation of delay can be admitted.
Whether the appellant's lack of knowledge about the first appeal decision constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Son of Plaintiff No.2
Respondent No.2
H
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
