Calcutta High Court
Vijendra Kumar Goel vs J.H. Industrial Corporation on 31 October, 2025
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee, Supratim Bhattacharya
OD-2 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
RVWO/31/2023
IA No. GA/1/2023
With
APDT/2/2018
CS/58/2014
VIJENDRA KUMAR GOEL
VERSUS
J.H. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Date: 31st October, 2025.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Subrata Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Balarko Sen, Adv.
Ms. Muskan Sharma, Adv.
For the Appellant/Review Applicant.
Mr. Nilendu Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta, Adv.
Ms. Ankita Baid, Adv.
Mr. S.G. Muscara, Adv.
For the Decree-holder/Respondent.
The Court:- This review application arises out of the judgment and
order dated 6th December, 2018 by which an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was dismissed.
The matter has chequered history. The review applicant suffered a decree on
7th January, 2016. Contending that the said decree was an ex parte one, the
review applicant preferred an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, `CPC'). The said application was dismissed by
the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13 th April, 2017. The said judgment
and order was appealed against. By a judgment and order dated 19 th June,
2017, the Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the appeal upholding the order of
the learned Single Judge. A special leave petition was filed challenging the
judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 19 th June, 2017. The special
leave petition was dismissed on 27th October, 2017. Thereafter the review
applicant preferred a regular appeal challenging the decree and also filed an
application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The review applicant
was examined in Court with regard to the statements made in the application
for condonation of delay.
After considering the averments in the application for condonation of
delay and the deposition of the review applicant, the application for
condonation of delay in filing the regular appeal being GA No. 237 of 2018 was
dismissed. Since the delay was not condoned, the appeal did not enter the
records of the Court.
The review applicant has sought for reviewing the judgment and order
dated 6th December, 2018, inter alia, on the ground that while dismissing the
application for condoning the delay in filing the regular appeal, the Division
Bench took into consideration only the facts leading to the passing of the
decree dated 7th January, 2016 which was contended to an ex parte decree.
The Division Bench did not take into account the post decree conduct which
ought to have been taken into consideration for condoning the delay in
preferring the regular appeal.
The respondents on the other hand submit that the reasons for which
the application for condoning the delay in preferring the regular appeal was
dismissed has been clearly provided in the impugned judgment and order.
Furthermore, the point urged by the review applicant is a point on which the
Appellate Court said to have erred in passing the judgment and order dated 6 th
December, 2018. If that be so, then the remedy of the review applicant lies in
an appeal against the judgment and order dated 6 th December, 2018. It is well
settled position of law that a mistake committed by a forum on point of law is
required to be assailed in appeal and no review lies against it as the scope of
review is very limited as enumerated under Order 47 of CPC, 1908.
The parties intend to file the written notes of arguments on the
adjourned date.
Let this matter appear on 21st November, 2025.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)
snn.
