Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
It appears that a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court recorded a
finding that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal and, consequently, it dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. S.L.P. (C)
No.21298 of 2000 filed against the said order of the High Court was disposed of by
this Court on 8th January, 2001, in the following terms:
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The submission is that the High Court by inadvertence
referred to the impugned order to be dated 15.9.98 which on the
face of it is incorrect. The submission is, on, account of this the
consideration of appeal and the observation that there was no
explanation for the six months is not sustainable.
We feel, if this be the fact, the proper course open for the
petitioners is to move for review in the High Court. In view of this,
this special leave petition is dismissed. However, this is without
prejudice of the rights of the petitioners to seek its remedy, if any,
before appropriate forum.”
From a bare reading of the aforesaid order, it would be clear that this
Court was, prima facie, of the view that the High Court was not justified in refusing
to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. Thereafter, a
review application was filed before the High Court. There was delay of nine days in
filing the review application after calculating the period of limitation from the date of
order passed in the special leave petition. However, the High Court dismissed the
review application on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation
of delay and calculating period of limitation from the date of original order
dismissing the appeal to be barred on limitation. It also held that the finding
recorded in the earlier order that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of
delay did not suffer from any error apparent from the record.
Against the aforesaid order, this appeal by special leave has been filed.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, we
are of the view that the High Court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay
in filing the review application and appeal before it. Accordingly, the
– 3 -
appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside, delay in filing the review application
and the appeal is condoned and the appeal is restored to its original file. The High
Court shall now dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Let hearing of the appeal be expedited.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, July 10, 2008.