Why Calcutta High Court eased 2,340 days delay for 82-yr-old woman in filing appeal

Delay should be condoned subject to the payment of costs, said the Calcutta High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

• The applicant/appellant is an illiterate tribal lady who being 82 years old, suffering from ailments and lack of memory problem, had to rely upon information and legal advice of a lawyer.
• The appellant who is a tribal lady had to pursue her right over some lands when there was threat of dispossession from the said lands.
• Considering the age of the appellant, the loss of power to remember cannot be ruled out.
• She had to pursue the case before the trial court for eight years.
• When she lost, she had to move the appeal court and pursue the appeal for another eight years.
• Delay should be condoned subject to the payment of costs.
• This application for condonation of delay stands allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs 6000 to the respondents and Rs 2000 to the high court legal service committee.
• When a litigant has to pursue litigation for several years in trial court and thereafter due to old age and ailments loses memory power about litigation her application for condonation of delay may be considered sympathetically.
• Courts have been conferred with the power to condone delay in case of appeal and application.
• A litigant after pursuing a litigation for a long period in trial court being exhausted usually requires time to get ready to prefer appeal if she loses before trial court.
• During the long period of legal battle she may become aged or suffer from ailments or become financially weak to start another litigation to prefer appeal.
• Courts are conferred with the discretion to take all relevant factors into consideration and condone delay in preferring appeal or making application.
• The case indicates that there was a lack of information and advice for which the appellant could not prefer the appeal in time.

Background

• The case originates from a land dispute involving the woman, a member of the tribal community residing in a remote village in West Bengal, more than 300 kilometres from Kolkata.
• The appellant had pursued litigation over her landed property for nearly two decades, spending about eight years before the trial court and another eight years before the first appellate court.
• According to the appellant, she is illiterate, advanced in age, and has been suffering from multiple age-related ailments since 2015.
• She claimed that owing to her deteriorating health and loss of memory associated with old age, she remained unaware of the dismissal of her first appeal for several years.
• It was only on August 13, 2024, during a chance encounter with a mohurar of the Bankura Judges Court, that she allegedly came to know that her appeal had already been dismissed.
• Upon acquiring this knowledge, she instructed her son to obtain certified copies of the judgments and decrees, which were applied for in August 2024.
• The present second appeal was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of the delay of 2,340 days.
• The said section allows courts to condone delays in filing appeals or applications if the party shows a sufficient cause for not being able to file within the prescribed time due to unavoidable reasons, aiming to prevent justice from being lost solely due to technical delays.

Appellant’s submissions

• Advocates Samir Kumar Adhikari and Saikat Seal, appearing for the woman, submitted that the delay was not intentional.
• It happened due to a combination of factors including her advanced age of 82 years.
• Her prolonged illness and medical advice to take rest.
• Loss of memory due to old age.
• Her illiteracy and lack of legal awareness.
• Dependence on others, including lawyers and family members, for information and legal steps.
  Her residence in a remote rural area, far removed from regular access to courts.

Respondents’ objections

• The respondents, while opposing the application, did not file any affidavit-in-opposition but their counsel made oral submissions.
• Advocate Neelabha Bera argued that the appellant had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
• The medical certificate produced did not state that the appellant was advised complete bed rest.
• There was no explicit mention of memory loss in the medical documents.
• Since another person was allegedly looking after the litigation, the appellant could not plausibly claim lack of knowledge of the appellate court’s decision.