S. K. MUKHERJEA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for an order that the appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution, the appellant Dot having filed the paper book in time or at all. The application was made on April 25, 1973. It is not in dispute that the paper book was due to be filed on November 16, 1972, the day the Court reopened after the long vacation. On November 16, 1972 the appellant's Solicitors applied to the Deputy Registrar for extension of time to file the paper book till January 3, 1973. An order was made as prayed for. Thereafter further applications for extension of time were made on January 2, 1973 and February 26, 1973. On the last application the Deputy Registrar extended the time to file the paper book till March 31, 1973. All these applications were presumably made under Rule 21 of Chapter XXXI of the Original Side Rules.

( 2 ) IT appears from the record that on March 31, 1973, the appellant's Solicitors again applied in writing requesting the Deputy Registrar to extend the time to file the paper book till April 30. 1973. It further appears from a note at the foot of the application that the application was sent on March 31, 1973 but as the day happened to be a Saturday, the letter was not received by the department. It was delivered on April 2, 1973 in the morning, April 1 having been a holiday. The note is signed by the appellant's Solicitor Mr. A. N. Mitter. It is recorded in the note-sheet on the file that this note was subscribed by Mr. A. N. Mitter on May 7, 1973. Strangely enough, the Deputy Registrar appears to have taken no action on this application. He neither granted the prayer for extension nor did he refuse it. It may be added that the application made on March 31, 1973 was made ex parte without notice to the other side as was also the case in the earlier applications.

( 3 ) THE appellant not having filed the paper book within the extended time which expired on March 31, 1973, the respondent made the present application on April 25, 1973 under Rule 22 of Chapter XXXI of the Original Side Rules. By this application, the respondent is asking for an order for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The Notice of Motion was served on the appellant's Solicitors on the same date. On April 28, 1973, the appellant's Solicitors again applied to the Deputy Registrar asking for extension of time till May 31, 1973. Although the respondent had, by then, made the application for dismissal of the appeal, no notice of the application before the Deputy Registrar for extension of time was served on the respondent nor was the attention of the Deputy Registrar drawn to the fact that an application for dismissal of the appeal under Chapter XXXI, Rule 22 was pending in the Appellate Court. The Deputy Registrar, in ignorance of that application, granted extension of time to file the paper book till May 31, 1973 by an order made on May 14, 1973. Pursuant to that order the appellant filed the paper book on May 30, 1973.

( 4 ) MR. Kapur, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that is to say, the respondent in this appeal, submitted that the appellant not having filed his paper book by March 31, 1973, the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution. He contended that the paper book has been filed pursuant to an order made by the Deputy Registrar after the respondent had made the application for dismissal of the appeal. In disposing of this application, Mr. Kapur contended, the Court should only consider the situation as it existed on the date of the application and proceed on that basis. On that date there was non-compliance with the order to file the paper book on or before the stipulated date and the respondent was, therefore, fully within his rights to apply for dismissal of the appeal under Rule 22 of Chapter XXXI. He further submitted that in any event, the fact that the paper book has been filed by the appellant pursuant to the order made by the Deputy Registrar on May 14, 1973 is of no consequence fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document