D/L.8.

December 10, 2025.

.

MNS

SAT No. 112 of 2025

+

CAN 1 of 2025

+

CAN 2 of 2025

The State of West Bengal

Vs.

Sri Paban Chandra Pramanik and others

Mr. Susovan Sengupta, Sr. Govt. Adv.,

Mr. Subir Pal

… for the appellant.

Mr. Partha Chakraborty,

Mr. Fazlul Haque,

Mr. Jyotirmoy Bhattacharjee,

Mr. R. Dutta Gupta

…for the respondents.

Re : CAN 1 of 2025 (condonation)

1. The present application for condonation of delay in preferring the Second Appeal is in respect of a delay which has been stated by the Additional Stamp Reporter to be of 356 days, but mentioned in the application for condonation of delay

by the appellant-State as 503 days.

2. However, even going by the lesser number, we find that no explanation worth the name has been given in the

application for the delay in preferring the appeal.

3. Learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State, seeks to argue that one Mr. Supratim Dhar was engaged as an Advocate to conduct the Second Appeal in the month of November, 2023, in which month, the concerned

Officer-in-Charge (Law) / Additional Land Acquisition Officer-in Charge of the matter was superannuated.

4. It is further contended by learned Senior Government Advocate that while adjudicating condonation applications, the court ought to adopt a liberal approach. It is also submitted that the Second Appeal itself has sufficient merits, which ought to be considered at the time of adjudicating the condonation application. Learned Senior Government Advocate submits further that the appellant is agreeable to pay costs as a condition for the condonation application to be allowed.

5. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Government Advocate cites a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the matter of The State of West Bengal and others Vs. Port Sramik Co-operative Enterprise Ltd. And another (MAT No. 1447 of 2017).

6. Learned Senior Government Advocate also relies on Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporatopn of Brihan Mumbai, reported at (2012) 5 SCC 157.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no plausible explanation has been given for the huge delay in preferring the appeal.

8. It is pointed out that the court has been sought to be misled in paragraph no. 15 of the condonation application, where it has been stated that the concerned Law Officer in charge of the matter had been superannuated in November, 2023. However, the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court was itself passed on December 19, 2023, that is, much thereafter. Hence, it could not be that an Officer in Charge was entrusted to prefer the present Second Appeal even before the impugned judgment was passed.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his contentions, cites 2025(1) Indian Civil Cases 753 (S.C.) [State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary], 2024(4) Indian Civil Cases 783 (S.C.) [Union of India and another Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR] and 2022(1) Indian Civil Cases 759 (S.C.) [ Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others].

10. It is contended by citing the said judgments that inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the appellant cannot be liberally construed where there is clear negligence on the part of the appellant in occasioning the delay in preferring an appeal. Moreover, it was observed that even if the limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party but it has to be applied in its rigour when prescribed by statute. Negligence, lack of bona fides and inaction cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay.

11. It is further contended that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held in the said judgments that the merits of the main matter cannot be looked into prior to the appellant crossing the hurdle of condonation of delay.

12. We find substance in the contention of the respondents.

13. In the application for condonation of delay, in paragraph no. 11, it has been categorically stated that the impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was passed on December 1