2022 (7) TMI 510 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of about 9 years and 4 months in filing application - HELD THAT - A litigant should not be penalised for the laches or misconduct on the part of his learned advocate. In the present case, though the petitioner should have been more diligent in pursuing his case before this Court, an opportunity should be granted to him to contest his appeal on merit. The delay in preferring this revisional application is condoned subject to the condition that the petitioner will pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal within a period of two weeks from date. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing revisional application after dismissal of appeal, communication failure between petitioner and advocate, mismatch in money receipt and case number, condonation of delay, payment of cost to State Legal Services Authority.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application for condonation of delay in filing a revisional application (CRR No.1299 of 2022) after the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2006 by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner claims that he was not informed about the dismissal by his advocate and only learned about it upon his arrest in April 2022. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the State raised concerns about a mismatch between the money receipt and the case number. The petitioner clarified that the number on the money receipt corresponds to the trial Court case. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner should have been more diligent but granted an opportunity to contest the appeal on merit.

The Court emphasized that a litigant should not be penalized for the negligence of their advocate. Despite finding the petitioner lacking in diligence, the Court decided to condone the delay in filing the revisional application. However, as a condition, the petitioner was directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000 to the State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. The judgment highlights the importance of diligence in pursuing legal matters while balancing the rights of the litigant to have their case heard on merit.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the matter by granting the condonation of delay in filing the revisional application, subject to the petitioner's compliance with the payment of the specified cost to the State Legal Services Authority within the stipulated timeframe. The judgment underscores the need for proper communication between a litigant and their advocate, as well as the Court's discretion in granting relief in cases of delay, considering the overall circumstances and interests of justice.