9th September,

2025 (AK)

F.A.T 205 of 2025

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Sudipta Mukherjee

Vs.

Bandana Mukherjee

Mr. Gautam Chakraborty

Mr. Ayam Basu

Mr. Swagatam Deb ...for the appellant.

Mr. Narayan Chandra Ghosh

...for the respondent.

Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee

Mr. Soumava Santra

...Advocate (appearing upon service

of notice as per direction of court).

In Re: CAN 1 of 2025

1. The present application has been filed for

condonation of delay of about 119 days in

preferring the appeal.

2. The primary grounds for the delay, as sought to be

portrayed in the application, are as follows:

“5. The appellant states that inspite of all the aforesaid the said Advocate Soumava Santra although assured from time to time that he was in the midst of preparation of the draft Memorandum of Appeal and he would be making the draft ready as early as possible but in spite of that much time has been spent by the said advocate and ultimately in or about 16^th April, 2025 the said advocate expressed that he was too busy in respect of several other matters for which he became unable to

prepare the draft. On that day the said advocate handed over the papers to the appellant/petitioner without the draft Memorandum of Appeal which he expressed he was not able to prepare.

A Photocopy of relevant communication being the Whatsapp Communication dated 28.04.2025 as sent by the petitioner to the said advocate recording the aforesaid matter and which was not replied by the said advocate to the petitioner, is annexed hereto and marked with the Letter-“B”.

6. The appellant also states that he is residing with his own elder brother Mr. Subrata Mukherjee and sister- in-law. His elder brother, a senior citizen aged about 62 years, had been suffering from serious eye ailment and as such he had been admitted to hospital on 29.11.2024 for Right Eye operation i.e. RE Phaco surgery with Hydrophobic IOL implantation, made under Topical Anesthesia. Be it mentioned here that as the only adult male member of the family, the appellant was solely responsible for managing his elder brother's care during the pre and post operative phases. In addition to arranging hospital visits, the appellant had to administer medicines and had been providing continuous physical support to his elder brother as the only male member in the family and the appellant also had to maintain his job and attend to essential household responsibilities in the meantime. In-spite of these unavoidable obligations, he established timely communication with his aforesaid advocate sometime over phone.

A photocopy of the eye treatment medical report of the elder brother of the appellant/ husband is annexed hereto and marked with the Letter - "C".

6A. It is stated that again the appellant's said elder brother namely Mr. Subrata Mukherjee was diagnosed with jaundice and was initially advised to take complete rest for a period of three weeks. Subsequently, based on medical review, the doctor advised an additional three weeks of rest, followed by a further two-week rest period. The appellant had to accompany his brother to the doctor for medical advice and check up on 08.02.2025, 28.02.2025, 18.03.2025, 02.04.2025, and 14.04.2025, and for medical examinations on 08.02.2025, 27.02.2025, 20.03.2025, and, 02.04.2025. During those prolonged phase, the appellant was exclusively engaged with his elder brother. Throughout this time, the appellant was also managing his service duties, household responsibilities, and his brother's ongoing treatment.

A photocopy of the medical reports of the elder brother of the appellant/husband is annexed hereto and marked with the letter-“D” collectively.

7. The appellant/petitioner/husband much depended upon the Advocates including Mr. Soumava Santra, Advocate but ultimately it appears that Mr. Soumava Santra, Advocate became unable to do the work in preparation of the draft of Memorandum of Appeal and failed to prepare the required work due to his busy schedule.”

3. Insofar as the alleged eye ailment of the elder brother of the petit