Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Rafiul Islam Chowdhury & Ors vs Sk. Rabial Hossen & Ors on 27 April, 2016

Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya

Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya

                                         1



27.04.2016.
   d.p.
                                    F.M.A.T. 1431 of 2014
                                     (CAN 8247 of 2015)


                                Rafiul Islam Chowdhury & Ors.
                                            Versus
                                   Sk. Rabial Hossen & Ors.


                       Mr. Pinaki Chakraborty,
                       Mr. Zakir Hossain.
                                  ...For the Appellants.

                       Mr. Gopal Ghosh.
                                  ...For the Respondents.

This appeal is a defective one. The instant appeal is a time barred appeal. There was 461 days delay in filing this appeal. Reason for the delay has been explained by the appellants in this application.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Arambag, the defendant preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge at Arambag. The said appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

Subsequently, it was detected by the appellants that the Court where such appeal was filed does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal. Since the suit was valued at Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs), the appeal lies before this Hon'ble Court.

In this set of facts, the appellant filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge, Arambag praying for leave to take back the memorandum of appeal from the said Court so that the appellants can present the appeal before this High Court.

Such permission was granted. Thereafter the appellants have filed the instant appeal before this Court. In this way delay was caused in filing this appeal. Reason for the delay, in our view, has been sufficiently explained by the appellants in this application. We hold that the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of the provision contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

The application for condonation of delay is, thus, allowed.

Let the appeal now be registered.

Let this appeal be placed for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure a week hence.

(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) ( Ishan Chandra Das, J.)