Courts can condone delays in appeals due to sufficient cause, especially for elderly or marginalized litigants facing health challenges, fostering a compassionate approach to justice.

JUDGMENT :

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.

1.This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 filed by the appellant/petitioner praying for condonation of delay in preferring this appeal.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner/Appellant that she is an old lady and at present reached 82 years of age and she has been suffering from several illness due to her old age since the English Calender year 2015. It is further contended by the petitioner that the petitioner came to know long after 8 years from the Muhurar of Bankura Judges Court while she was suddenly met with the said Muhurar that she lost in the appeal before Appellate Court. The petitioner being old lady also could not visit Bankura Judges Court as she had suffered long illness due to her old age and she was under the treatment of renowned doctor. The doctor has all along advised the petitioner to take rest due to old age. The petitioner due to old age ailment also could not remember about the appeal during the long 8 years prior to meeting of the Mohurar of Bankura Judges Court and having obtained the knowledge about the fate of the Title Appeal on 13-08-2024 the petitioner instructed her son to obtain certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Appellate Court.

3. The petitioner being old lady has given authority to her son to prefer the Memo of Appeal and hence 2340 days delay in filing this Appeal be condoned. It is also contended that the petitioner belongs to tribal community and residing in a remote village which is more than 300 Kilometres from Kolkata. As per advice of the Learned Advocate of Bankura Judges Court the petitioner has preferred the Memo of Appeal as the case was not adjudicated through points of Law and facts. It is submitted by the petitioner that the delay be condoned and the Appeal be heard on merits, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

4. The respondent no-1, 2, and 6 who have appeared to oppose this application have not filed any Affidavit in opposition. However Learned Advocate for the respondent no, 1, 2, and 6 submits that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause for condoning delay of 8 years. The first argument of the Learned Advocate is that the Medical Certificate of the doctor although shows that the appellant was under treatment but nowhere it states that she was advised bed rest, the second argument is that the medical certificate does not show that she was suffering from problem relating to memory. The third argument is that another person was looking after her case and she cannot claim that she had no knowledge.

5. Learned Advocates relies upon the following Judicial decisions:

Baxter (India) Private Limited VS Smt. Debjani Bose. FAT. No. 33 of 2024

Esha Bhattacharjee VS Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. Reported in (2013) 12 SCC. P-649.

M/S. Vision Holidays VS Customs Exice and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal . WP No-11898 of 2024

6. Learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that due to ailments and lack of knowledge of the Appellant there is delay of eight years in preferring this appeal, thus delay should be condoned.

7. Learned Advocate relies upon the following Judicial decision.

Bhuneshwari Bai V Gokul . Second Appeal No. 153 of 2011. High Court of Chattisgarh

Aloke Kumar Chattopadhyay VS Chief Engineer (I) Irrigation and Waterways Directorate Reported in 2013 SCC Online Cal 6562.

Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag VS Mst Katyi and others . Reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 1353.

8. In the instant case condonation is sought on the appellant being aged not remembering about the appeal and when informed by Mohurar of Bankura Court she came to know of the same. Now the point for consideration is whether in the absence of affidavit in opposition from the side of respondents showing knowledge of the appellant about result of appeal whether the contention should be believed and delay should be condoned.

9. It is decided in different Judicial Pronouncements that a liti