judgment :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. The Key issue involved in this appeal is whether the learned Single Bench of this Court was justified in allowing the application for condonation of delay subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court dated 14.12.2023 in connection with W.P.A 19320 of 2010 the present appellant has preferred this instant appeal.

3. Mr. Biswarup Biswas learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in law in allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condonation of delay on condition of payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- without going into the merits of the case of this appellant. It is further submitted that the Single Bench was not justified in imposing the cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant for allowing the application for condonation of delay filed in connection with recalling the order of dismissal of the writ application dated 18.08.2017. As per submission of the learned Counsel the present appellant is not at all negligent in persuading the case which was pending before the learned Single Bench but unfortunately the said writ petition was dismissed for default without any fault attributed on the part of this present appellant and as such there is no question of imposing compensation .

4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Bench at the time of passing of the impugned order did not at all consider the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in series of cases. Although the present appellant explained the delay in spite of that it has been observed by the learned Single Bench that the delay should have been explained in better way but the fact remains that as soon as this present appellant came to know about the fate of the writ application instituted by him he then and then contacted with his learned Advocate. Thereafter, the application was taken out for restoration of the said order of dismissal along with the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condonation of delay but the learned Single Bench did not at all consider the said factum as stated by the present petitioner. It is further argued by the learned Counsel that Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly held that substantial justice shall prevail over procedural law and delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act shall be disposed of with liberal point of view but that guideline as initiated by the Apex Court has not been followed up by the learned Single Bench in passing the impugned order. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that imposing of cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant will seriously prejudice the appellant as the appellant is not in a position to deposit the said amount. As such it is prayed by the learned Counsel that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be modified to that extent.

5. Mr. Ayan Banerjee learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state submits that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. It is submitted that the Court has exercised his power of discretion in the matter of allowing the application filed by the petitioner with a prayer for condonation of delay subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- to this appellant. At last learned Counsel leaves the matter upon the discretion of the Court to decide the issue involved in this appeal.

6. We have anxiously considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties as well as perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court

7. While refusing to condone the delay of 5659 days in preferring an appeal, the Supreme Court had laid down eight principles by providing harmonious construction to Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. an