[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Kamales Mallik vs Octavius Tea And Industrties on 1 December, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
O-5
APDT/18/2025
WITH CS/244/2008
IA No.GA/1/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Original Side
KAMALES MALLIK
-VERSUS-
OCTAVIUS TEA AND INDUSTRTIES
LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS
OCTAVIUS STEEL AND CO. LTD.)
AND ORS.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Date : 1st December, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Kushal Chatterjee. Adv.
Mr. Arindam Paul, Adv.
Ms. Debarati Das, Adv.
Ms. Sohini Choudhury, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. D. N. Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. C. R. Saha, Adv.
...for the respondent no.1.
Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suvasish Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Bagaria, Adv.
Mr. Devansh Sonthalia, Adv.
...for the respondent nos.2, 6, 11 & 13.
Mr. A. P. Gomes, Adv.
...for the respondent no.8.
Mr. Subhendu Bandopadhbyay, Adv.
...for the respondent no.15.
The Court :- IA No.GA/1/2025 is an application seeking condonation
of delay in making and filing the appeal.
Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appeal
is a party receiver. Appellant is on advanced age and suffering from various
illness. Appellant is practically blind. Appellant requires administration of
injection.
Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, there are
other co-sharers of the suit property. Since the appeal is directed against a
decree of dismissal of the suit, Court-fees of Rs.50,000/- was required.
Garnering the same and obtaining consent from other co-sharers consume a
lot of time. Moreover, the failing health of the appellant did not permit the
appellant to be requisitely active.
Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, although
the appellant filed a writ petition on his own in the month of September, 2024,
nonetheless, in the present appeal, a number of co-sharers are involved and
the requirement of Court-fees was also there. He submits that, the appellant
took the assistance of one of the co-sharers who assisted him.
Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent submits that,
the delay is in excess of 500 days. He points out that the appellant was fit
enough to file a writ petition in the month of September, 2024.
We are required to consider an application for condonation of delay
leniently. Any plausible cause which seeks to explain the delay should be
accepted. However, the same does not mean that we are required to accept any
and every cause shown.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the date of the
decree is January 9, 2024. Appeal was presented on July 18, 2025.
Application for certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree was made
on July 7, 2025 and the delivery thereof was taken on July 10, 2025.
Department reports a delay of 515 days in making and filing the
appeal.
The application for condonation of delay contains averments with
regard to the failing health of the appellant as also to his advanced age.
Number of parties are involved in the suit. Consent of the co-sharers to file the
appeal and garnering the court-fees and the other requisites caused the delay
and are legitimate explanations which needs to be taken into consideration.
Explanations offered cannot be classified or held to be unacceptable.
The causes shown by the appellant in seeking condonation of delay cannot be
brushed aside as absurd. They are plausible cause.
In such circumstances, we are accepting the causes shown in the
application for condonation of delay.
Delay in making and filing the delay is condoned. IA No.GA/1/2025
is allowed.
Appeal be made ready by preparation of paper book. Paper Books be
prepared and filed within 4 weeks from date.
List the appeal in the monthly list of January, 2026.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
A/s.
