Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Paritosh Naskar vs Unknown on 18 April, 2022
Author: Bibek Chaudhuri
Bench: Bibek Chaudhuri
18.04.2022 Serial no. 12 Srimanta Ct. No. 42 IA No.:CRAN/1/2018 (Old No.:CRAN/2050/2018) in CRMSPL/105/2018 In the matter of : Sri Paritosh Naskar ... petitioner.
Mr. Kaushik Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Re : IA No.:CRAN/1/2018 (Old No.:CRAN/2050/2018) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner/appellant praying for condonation of delay by 901 days in preferring the application for special leave to appeal.
From the affidavit-of-service filed on 10 th September, 2018 it appears that the registered envelope containing the notice along with the copy of the application for special leave to file appeal was returned with postal remark 'left' in respect of the residential address of the accused/private opposite party. In respect of another notice sent to his official address it was returned unserved with postal remark 'not known'.
It is submitted by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner sent the notice of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act under registered post with acknowledgement in the last known address of the private opposite party. The petitioner has nothing to do except sending the notice in the last known address of the private opposite party which has been returned with postal remark 'left'.
Considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the law relating to the presumption of service contained in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, this Court holds that the 2 postal remark 'left' amounts to be good service. In support of the above observation the Court relies upon a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Miss D. Ennis -Vs.- M/s. Calcutta Vyapar Pratistha Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 1991 Cal 152.
Therefore, the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is taken up for hearing. Heard the Learned Advocate for the petitioner, perused the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and considered. The petitioner pleaded that there was delay in filing the special leave petition to appeal mainly on the ground of petitioner's serious illness. The original petitioner has already expired due to his illness. His legal representatives are proceeding with the instant proceeding.
Considering the case made out by the petitioner in his petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I am inclined to allow the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act condoning delay of 901 days in preferring the instant application for special leave to appeal.
Re : CRMSPL/105/2018 This is an application for special leave to appeal. Perused the application. Leave is granted.
The petitioner is directed to file memorandum of appeal within 30 days from the date of this order.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)