Gobinda Ch.Brahma vs State

Heard Sri T.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner on the question of limitation involving 1120 days in filing the delay condonation

application as averred in paragraph-3, which reads as follows :-

“That, the Advocate/s of plaintiff/appellant obtained the certified copy on dt.21.5.2005. the petitioner was suffering from Hypertention vis-à -vis both lower limbs

are paralysis. He was undergoing treatment from 3.3.2005 to the date 21.4.2008 and he was advised for bed rest. The copy of the Medical Certificate dated 21.4.2008 is

filed herewith as Annexure-1.â€​

In support of the condonation of delay, the petitioner has also relied on a Medical Certificate issued on 21.4.2008, i.e., three months prior to filing of

the present Misc. Case. Taking the disclosures in the Medical Certificate, Sri T.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is

reasonable ground taken in the delay condonation petition, and therefore, the delay should be condoned. Sri Mishra further submitted that in the event

of any suffering to the respondents, the suffering of the respondents can be mitigated by sufficient cost.

To this, Ms.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents taking into account the grounds indicated in the objection to the limitation

petition submitted that there is no reasonable explanation explaining the delay and the Medical Certificate obtained three years after and just before

filing of the Appeal should not be accepted.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds from the pleading at paragraph-3 of the limitation application that the appellant obtained

the certified copy of the judgment and decree on 21.5.2005 and he started suffering from Hypertension vis-Ã -vis both lower limbs were paralysis and

for the treatment undertaken, he was also asked for complete bed rest as appearing from the Medical Certificate. Considering this plea this Court

observes, since this dispute involving a First Appeal there was no necessity for the appellant to move this Court for filing the Appeal, which need not

require any personal affidavit. There is also no disclosure as to if the petitioner was nobody else to attend him. Further looking to the diseases suffered

by the appellant and further looking to the Medical Certificate granted by a Homoeopathy Doctor, this Court finds strange in supply of Medical

Certificate by the Doctor. The certificate also appears to have been granted after almost three years of suffering indicating that the appellant was

required to take bed rest up to 21.4.2008. There is paper inasmuch as lab testing reports establish that the petitioner was in fact suffering and

remained unmoved.

In the meantime eleven years have passed and the Appeal is yet to be admitted. Law is fairly settled to the extent that consideration of condonation of

delay is not mere mechanical and such huge delay must be explained properly. In absence of proper/valid explanation and the nature of Medical

Certificate again being granted by a Homoeopathy Doctor, Certificate of this nature cannot be accepted.

In such view of the matter and for the nature of Medical Certificate being granted by a Homoeopathic Doctor, this Court finds, there is no sufficient

reason to condone the delay of three years 22 days in filing the Appeal.

The Limitation Petition thus stands rejected.

Consequently, the R.F.A. stands dismissed on account of long delay.

Issue urgent certified copy.

…………………………