IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4293 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3745 of 2004)

Collector, Hooghly and Ors.      ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Nirmal Sarkar (D) by Lrs. and Ors.      ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

It appears that a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court recorded a

finding  that  no  sufficient  cause  was  shown for  condonation  of  delay  in  filing  the

appeal and, consequently, it dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.  S.L.P. (C)

No.21298 of 2000 filed against the said order of the High Court was disposed of by

this Court on 8th January, 2001, in the following terms:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The submission is that the High Court by inadvertence referred to the impugned order to be dated 15.9.98 which on the face of it  is  incorrect.  The submission is,  on,  account of this  the consideration  of  appeal  and  the  observation  that  there  was  no explanation for the six months is not sustainable.

      ....2/-

- 2 -

We feel, if this be the fact, the proper course open for the petitioners is to move for review in the High Court.  In view of this, this  special  leave  petition  is  dismissed.   However,  this  is  without prejudice of the rights of the petitioners to seek its remedy, if any, before appropriate forum.”

From a bare reading of  the aforesaid order,  it  would be clear that this

Court was, prima facie, of the view that the High Court was not justified in refusing

to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay.  Thereafter, a

review application  was filed before the High Court.  There was delay of nine days in

filing the review application after calculating the period of limitation from the date of

order passed in the special leave petition.  However, the High Court dismissed the

review application on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation

of  delay  and  calculating  period  of  limitation  from  the  date  of  original  order

dismissing  the  appeal  to  be  barred  on  limitation.   It  also  held  that  the  finding

recorded in the earlier order that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of

delay did not suffer from any error apparent from the record.

Against the aforesaid order, this appeal by special leave has been filed.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, we

are of the view that the High Court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay

in filing the review  application  and  appeal before it.  Accordingly, the

....3/-

– 3 -

appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside, delay in filing the review application

and the appeal is condoned and the appeal is restored to its original file.  The High

Court shall now dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after giving

opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Let hearing of the appeal be expedited.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, July 10, 2008.