Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

WPLRT 184 of 2025

Asit Baran Giri

Vs.

Kanchan Giri and others

For the petitioner : Mr. Debasis Nandi,

Mr. Kumaresh Dalal,

Mr. Atreya Chakraborty

For the respondent

nos. 1 & 4 : Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty,

Mr. Basanta Guha Thakurata

For the State : Mr. Chandi Charan De, AGP,

Ms. Saswati Chatterjee

Heard on : 17.11.2025 Judgment on : 17.11.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. On the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, leave is granted to

the petitioner to add three other persons, who sailed on the same boat as the petitioner before the Tribunal, as proforma respondents in the

present writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal erred in law and without jurisdiction in allowing the condonation application of the private respondent herein without there being sufficient explanation for the delay. Learned counsel points out that all throughout the pleadings in the application for condonation and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the private respondent before the Tribunal, the delay was mentioned to be of about 118 days, whereas the delay was actually much more. Thus, it is argued that there was insufficient explanation for such delay.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next argues that certain allegedly medical documents were annexed to the affidavit-in-reply before the Tribunal by the private respondent, which were of a different period than the period during which the delay was occasioned.

5. Learned counsel further submits that blame for the petitioner’s own negligence has been sought to be shifted on the clerk of the learned Advocate for the private respondent dealing with the matter in the Tribunal and before the appellate authority, which has been deprecated by this Court on several occasions.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further adds that the Tribunal, upon allowing the condonation application, admitted the original application of the private respondent without giving any hearing to the present petitioner, who was the respondent therein.

7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner cites an unreported judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in FAT 33 of 2024 [Baxter (India) Private Limited vs. Smt. Debjani Bose] with regard to the governing legal principles regarding adjudication of applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

8. Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the caption of the condonation application was mentioned to be Section 5 of the Limitation Act whereas Section 10(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 is the relevant provision. However, serious objection is not raised by the State on such ground and it is submitted that the petitioner and the Tribunal ought to have mentioned the correct provision in respect of the condonation application.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents opposes the contentions of the petitioner and stands by the order passed by the Tribunal condoning the delay on the ground that sufficient explanation was shown before the Tribunal.

10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials before us, we find that the judgment which has been cited before us is a double-edged sword. In it, it was inter alia observed that the latest view taken by the Supreme Court is that in respect of condonation applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in order to advance substantial justice, though a liberal and justice- oriented approach is to be kept in mind, but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act. It was further observed that the courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause has been explained, but that exercise