Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ***
MAT/58/2025 IA NO. CAN/1/2025
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others
Vs.
Manjula Devi
Mr. Rakesh Kumar
… for the appellants
Mr. KMB Jayapal
… for the respondents January 6, 2026 [SR] Item No.8 The appeal is accompanied by an application under the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. On a perusal of the said application, it appears that the order under appeal was passed on 11th November, 2024. The certified copy of the order was applied for on 24th December, 2024. There is no explanation as to why more than one and half months were spent in applying for the certified copy. Admittedly, the certified copy was received on 8th January, 2025. The appeal has been filed on 20.08.2025. The report of the Stamp Reporter shows that there is a delay of 221 days. There is also no explanation as to why the delay of 234 days as computed by the appellants/petitioners has occurred. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are the only paragraphs in the petition referring to the delay in preferring the appeal. The said two paragraphs are set out herein for convenience. “5. That the petitioner states that the petitioner received the order copy from the Counsel who presented the
petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court Circuit Bench at Port Blair on 09-01-2025 and thereafter the file was processed for approval from the Department for preferring the appeal.
That during the process of approval and vetting from the department inadvertent delay as occurred due to which there was delay of 234 days for preferring the appeal before this Hon’ble Court.”
The two paragraphs quoted herein above are not only devoid of particulars but also does not explain the delay far less the day to day delay. The law in condoning the delay to allow an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been clearly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on 5th December, 2025 in Civil Appeal No.14613 of 2025 ( Shankargir vs. The State of M.P. and another). The appellants/petitioners have referred to a Division Bench of this Court delivered on 19th December, 2025 in MAT/47/2025 (Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others vs. Smt Nazreen Banu and another) to contend that the Division Bench, after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai vs. M/s Sri Ram City Union Finance Co. Limited, SLP (Civil) Diary No.62399 of 2025 had condoned the delay. On a reading of the two judgments as aforesaid, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the sufficiency of the grounds for condoning the delay has to be culled out from the pleadings. The satisfaction of the Court while adjudicating
an application for condoning the delay should be on the basis of the pleadings. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record as also the judgment cited and/or referred to, we are of the view that there is no satisfactory explanation as to cause of the delay far less sufficient cause being shown for the plea for condoning the delay in the instant application. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal being CAN/1/2025 is dismissed. Since the application for condoning the delay is dismissed, there is no question of admitting the appeal, being MAT/58/2025 and as such we refrain from entering into the merits of the appeal.
( Arindam Mukherjee, J. )
( Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. )