FAT/172/2025 of TAPAN MAJHI Vs SOUMYA SAHA AND ANR

Form No. J(2) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’be Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya F.A.T 172 of 2025 IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 Tapan Majhi Vs Soumya Saha and another For the appellant : Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya For the respondent : Mr. Ayan Banerjee Mr. Tarun Kr. Aich Heard on : 05.01.2026 Judgment on : 05.01.2026 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. The affidavit-of-service filed in court today be ke pt on record. 2. The present application is one for condonation of t he delay of about 432 days in preferring the appeal. 3. The appeal has been preferred against an eviction d ecree. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an illiterate person and is not aware of the nuance s of law and 2 as such, only upon being informed of the execution case, took steps for preferring the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the decree-holders/re spondents submits that no explanation whatsoever has been giv en in the application for condonation of delay for the prolon ged delay in preferring the appeal. 6. Secondly, it is argued that the appellant has suppr essed in the condonation application that the appellant had ente red appearance in the suit and thereafter did not conte st the same. 7. Thus, it is submitted that the appellant all along had knowledge of the pendency of the suit. 8. On a perusal of the application, we find that it ha s been suppressed that the appellant had appeared in the s uit and as such it was within the knowledge of the appellant t hat the suit was pending. 9. Despite the same, we do not find any iota of pleadi ng as to how the appellant was diligent in pursuing the suit. 10. Even apart from the suppression of such material fa ct of the appellant having entered appearance in the suit and having knowledge of the same, we find precious nothing in the application by way of explanation for the long dela y in preferring the same. 3 11. Also, we see from the affidavit supporting the appl ication for condonation of delay that the appellant has signed the same and, as such, cannot be said to be illiterate as su ch. 12. Be that as it may, since no explanation whatsoever has been given for the prolonged delay in preferring the app eal, we are unable to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 13. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs. 14. Consequentially, FAT 172 of 2025 is dismissed as ti me-barred. 15. As a necessary consequence, CAN 2 of 2025 is also d ismissed without any order as to costs. 16. A formal decree be drawn up accordingly. 17. Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied f or, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formal ities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree. (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) AD-34 AK