[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Nemai Chandra Ghosh vs C E S C Ltd And Ors on 13 February, 2026
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
O-55
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
APDT/5/2025
With CS/321/2004
IA No. GA/1/2025
NEMAI CHANDRA GHOSH
-Vs-
C E S C LTD AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
-AND-
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Date: February 13, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Aditya Roy, Adv.
Mr. Arindam Paul, Adv.
Ms. Debarati Das, Adv.
Ms. Sohini Choudhury, Adv.
...for the appellant
Ms. Vaibhavi Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Tiasha Gupta, Adv.
...for the respondent
The Court : Appellant seeks to prefer an appeal from a decree
dismissing a suit on the ground of limitation.
Affidavit-in-opposition filed to the application for stay including
prayer for condonation of delay be taken on record.
Department reports a delay of 403 days in making and filing the
appeal.
Condonation of delay is sought on the grounds that, the appellant
suffered an assault in the year 2003; financial condition of the appellant did
not permit the appellant to file the appeal within time; the appellant was
suffering from terminal illness, therefore, could not file the appeal within
time and there was a delay in obtaining the certified copy.
We find from the records that, the impugned judgment and decree is
dated September 21, 2023. Event of assault was of 2003. Therefore, the
question of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal on the ground of
event of assault of 2003 does not arise.
So far as terminal illness is concerned, there is no medical evidence
made available to us to sustain such claim. We find three medical
certificates annexed to the application. Two of the medical certificates are
dated December 8, 2024 and other one is January 15, 2025.
As noted above, the decree is dated September 21, 2023. Therefore,
these medical certificates do not cover the period of limitation in its entirety.
Nature of terminal illness as claimed by the appellant is not pleaded
in the petition. Medical certificates referred to in the previous paragraph do
not specify any terminal illness of the appellant.
There is no evidence with regard to the alleged financial incapacity of
the appellant.
There is no explanation as to why there was a delay in obtaining the
certified copy as claimed by the appellant.
Even taking into account the delay in obtaining the certified copy,
then also, the delay is of 403 days which remains unexplained.
We remind ourselves that, while considering an application for
condonation of delay we are required to be lenient and accept any plausible
cause shown. At the same time, it is trite law, that the exercise of
condonation of delay should not be stretched to such extent so as to cause
prejudice to the other party and render the exercise in itself nugatory. In
other words, any and every explanation can and must not be accepted. Any
explanation which is plausible should be accepted.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant did
not offer any explanation which can be classified as plausible.
We are, therefore, unable to condone the delay in making and fililng
the appeal.
APDT/5/2025 along with IA No. GA/1/2025 is dismissed without
any order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
sp3
