Calcutta High Court
Sudip Dakshy & Anr vs Rt. Revd. Ashoke Biswas And Amp Ors on 26 November, 2025
Author: Sugato Majumdar
Bench: Sugato Majumdar
2022:CHC-OS:5749
OD -11
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/4/2024
In CS/180/2018
SUDIP DAKSHY & ANR.
Vs
RT. REVD. ASHOKE BISWAS AND amp ORS
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Date: 26th November, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. S. Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. S. Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Balarko Sen. Adv.
Ms. Subhra Das, Adv.
...for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv.
Ms. Ishita Roy, Adv.
...for the Defendant no. 1.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Shreyashee Das, Adv.
Mr. Tridibesh Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Shubhayan Chakraborty, Adv.
...for the Defendant no. 2.
Mr. Sankalp Narain, Adv.
Mr. B. P. Tiwari, Adv.
...for the defendant no. 3.
2
2022:CHC-OS:5749
The Court: GA 4 of 2024 is filed by the Plaintiffs, praying for recalling of the
Order dated 28th July, 2022, in effect restoration of CS 180 of 2018.
The suit was dismissed for default on 28th July, 2022 by a Co-Ordinate Bench.
It is contended that Plaintiff No. 1 is a senior citizen aged above 70 years and
the physical condition of the Plaintiff No. 1 was not very well for which he could not
contact the Plaintiff No. 2. But the Plaintiff No. 2 could not contact his advocate -on
-record to track the steps taken into suit. It is averred that Plaintiff No. 2 informed
the Plaintiff No. 1 on dismissal of the suit in the month of July 2022. The Plaintiff
No. 1, due to old aged could not contact the Plaintiff No. 2 for up to date information
of the suit. It is also averred that in the first week of July 2024 Plaintiff No. 2 learnt
about the dismissal of the suit and immediately instructed the advocate-on-record to
take necessary steps for recalling the order. It is further prayed that delay of two
years in preferring this application may be condoned.
Parties exchanged their affidavits.
Mr. Dasgupta, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted,
referring to the affidavit-in-opposition, that the Plaintiff No. 2 is a practicing
advocate of this Court. On 28th July, He attended National Company Law Tribunal,
Kolkata Bench. It is further submitted that both the advocate-on-record as well as
the Plaintiff No. 2 appeared in number of matters together after dismissal of the suit.
It is contended that on 28th July, 2022 itself both the Plaintiff No. 2 as well as the
advocate-on-record whether attended Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench.
It was argued that although the Plaintiff No. 1 pleaded that he is ailing and
aged yet he is leading normal life and is found a number of places; photographs are
in the social media. According to Mr. Dasgupta although aged, the Plaintiff No. 1 is
not ailing to that extent disabling him to move out and enquire into the matter.
2022:CHC-OS:5749
The Learned Counsel for the Defendant no. 3 & 2 submitted that there is no
proper explanation of delay. More so, culpable conduct of the petitioner whose
statements are not made bona fide, cannot cure the latches of delay, keeping the
same unexplained. The Learned Counsel referred to the observation of the Supreme
Court of India in Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board &
Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969).
I have heard rival submission.
In Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy & Ors. [(2013) 12 SCC 649] the Supreme Court of India observed that
the term "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy
and purpose. A distinction was made between inordinate delay and the delay of
short duration or few days. It was observed that lack of bona fides imputable to a
party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. There is a
distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to
the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be
attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls
for a liberal delineation. The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its
inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as
the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance
of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go
by in the name of liberal approach. This judgment was referred to and relied upon
subsequently in Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board &
Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969).
In this case there is a delay of two years. Certain explanations were given.
These explanations do not lend in credence. The documents, placed before this
Court along with affidavit-in-opposition, undermines the veracity of explanation for
2022:CHC-OS:5749
condonation of delay. A liberal interpretation as well as liberal approach in
condonation of delay should not be exploited as a gateway for sanctification of laxity
and inaction. This court is not satisfied that proper explanation is given by the
Petitioner to condone the delay.
Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed.
GA 4 of 2024 accordingly stands disposed of.
(SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.)
