Chhabi Kulavi and Anr. Vs. Ganesh Chandra Mondal
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.7371 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11224 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.2000 of the Calcutta High Court in F.A.T. No. 53 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11224 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.2000 of the Calcutta High Court in F.A.T. No. 53 of 2000)
Petitioner: Chhabi Kulavi and Anr.
Respondent: Ganesh Chandra Mondal
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.7371 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11224 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.2000 of the Calcutta High Court in F.A.T. No. 53 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11224 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.2000 of the Calcutta High Court in F.A.T. No. 53 of 2000)
Judges: M.B. SHAH & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 14, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Condonation of delay – Permissibility – Ex parte decree of civil suit – Appeal filed in wrong court ultimately transferred to right court – Resultant delay of about two and half years- High Court refusing to condone delay. Held, there being sufficient cause for delay like the illness of appellant’s husband and he subsequently becoming blind and also the Advocate filing appeal in wrong court, it was a fit case for condonation of the delay.
Held:
In our view, there was sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant’s husband was ill and became blind. Thereafter, it is the Advocate who has filed the appeal in the wrong court. For these causes the appellants cannot be blamed. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal. (Para 4)
Cases Reffered:
“&” |
JUDGEMENT:
S.N. VARIAVA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against an order dated 6th March, 2000, wher-ein the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal has been dismissed.
3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
The respondent had filed a title suit against the appellants. That suit came to be decreed ex parte. Thereafter the appell-ants filed an appeal which was filed in the wrong court and was ultimately transferred and filed in the right court. But by then there was delay of approximately 2½ years, The application for condonation of delay has been dismissed by the impugned order.
4. In our view, there was sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant’s husband was ill and became blind. Thereafter, it is the Advocate who has filed the appeal in the wrong court. For these causes the appellants cannot be blamed. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal. The High Court shall number the appeal, if not already numbered and take it up for final hearing. We request the High Court to dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months.
5 This appeal stands disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against an order dated 6th March, 2000, wher-ein the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal has been dismissed.
3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
The respondent had filed a title suit against the appellants. That suit came to be decreed ex parte. Thereafter the appell-ants filed an appeal which was filed in the wrong court and was ultimately transferred and filed in the right court. But by then there was delay of approximately 2½ years, The application for condonation of delay has been dismissed by the impugned order.
4. In our view, there was sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant’s husband was ill and became blind. Thereafter, it is the Advocate who has filed the appeal in the wrong court. For these causes the appellants cannot be blamed. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal. The High Court shall number the appeal, if not already numbered and take it up for final hearing. We request the High Court to dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months.
5 This appeal stands disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.
