Biswanath Somadder, J.—This is an application seeking recall of an order of dismissal of an appeal dated 21st June, 2001, upon condonation of delay in preferring the same after a period of more than 15 (fifteen) years.

2. Before we proceed to take up the instant application for its consideration on merit, we propose to look into the records of the case. The records reveal that a writ petition was filed by one M/s. Serajuddin & Co. - describing itself to be a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act - before the First Court sometime in the year 1979. That writ petition was numbered as CR No. 2348 (W) of 1979. A judgment and order was passed by a learned Single Judge on 21st April, 1982, in that writ petition against which an appeal was preferred, being FMAT 1091 of 1982. Consequent upon filing of the appeal, an application for injunction was taken out by the appellant on 29th April, 1982, which was heard for a couple of days - on contest - in May 1982 and was finally dismissed on 12th May, 1982, upon the prayer for stay being refused. Certain directions were also given by the Appeal Court consequent upon dismissal of the application. The order dated 12th May, 1982, reads as follows:

“The prayer for stay is refused. The application is dismissed.

Cyclostyled or printed paper books to be filed within six weeks from date. All formalities are dispensed with.

Liberty to mention for early hearing after the paper books are filed.

There shall be an order of stay of operation of this order for ten days from date. But during this ten days the appellant will not be entitled to operate the mines.”

3. The records further reveal that, let alone six weeks, right until 21st June, 2001 [(i.e., a period of 19 (nineteen) years], the appellant - being a registered partnership firm - did not take a single step in the matter or filed its paper books - either cyclostyled or printed - in terms of the specific directions given by the Court as contained in the order dated 12th May, 1982. Finally, on 21st June, 2001, the Appeal Court passed the following order:

“No one appears in support of the appeal when the same is called on for hearing although learned Counsel for the respondent is present.

Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed for default. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

No order as to costs.”

4. Now, after a further gap of more than 15 (fifteen) years, the instant application seeking recall of the aforesaid order dated 21st June, 2001, appears to have been filed in the Registry on 4th August, 2016. In the instant application seeking recall of the order dated 21st June, 2001, a prayer for condonation of delay in filing of the same has also been made on the basis of several statements, some of which are quoted herein below:

“6. Your petitioner states that for the purposes of the said appeal, your petitioner consulted and engaged late Shri Balai Roy, Senior Advocate to represent them in the proceedings and as advised by him, a junior Advocate in his chambers, namely, Mr. Sobhan Lal Hazra, Advocate was engaged to act as the junior Advocate for the purposes of the said proceedings. Accordingly, a Vokalatnama was given to and in favour of Mr. Sobhan Lal Hazra and such Vokalatnama was filed by him on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Case No.2348 (W) of 1973 as well as subsequently in FMAT No.1091 of 1982 being the appeal above named.

7. Your petitioner states that having engaged the learned Advocates to represent the petitioner in the manner aforesaid particularly for the purpose of FMAT No.1091 of 1982 your petitioner reasonably believed that all necessary steps as required would thereafter be taken as and when necessary for the preservation and protection of its rights and interests in relation to the said proceedings. It will be apparent from the records of this case hereinbefore summarized that your petitioner at all material times was (and still is) seriously interested to pursue proceedings