- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Radha Krishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant intended to file an appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. His original advocate, Mr. M.M. Verma, repeatedly led him to believe that the appeal had already been filed and was pending. When the appellant could not obtain satisfactory updates, he engaged another advocate, Mrs. Heera Jain, who discovered that no appeal had ever been instituted. An appeal was then filed along with an application seeking condonation of a 1418-day delay caused by the earlier misrepresentation. On 6 August 1998, the Division Bench of the High Court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. The present matter reached the Supreme Court, with leave confined solely to the question of whether the extraordinary delay should be condoned.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the delay of 1418 days in filing the appeal—occasioned by the appellant’s advocate misrepresenting that an appeal had been filed—constitutes “sufficient cause” for condonation under the applicable limitation provisions.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant was a victim of misrepresentation by his own counsel, who falsely assured him that an appeal had been filed and was pending.
- Given these exceptional circumstances, the High Court ought to have treated the delay as bona fide and condoned it.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the delay of 1418 days was “unduly long” but found the surrounding circumstances “very unusual.” The Court emphasized:
- The appellant relied on his original advocate’s representation that an appeal had been duly filed.
- Upon learning that no appeal existed, the appellant acted promptly by engaging new counsel and filing both the appeal and an application for condonation.
- The appellant’s conduct did not betray a lack of vigilance; rather, it demonstrated diligence thwarted by professional misconduct.
Given these findings, the Court held that the cause shown was sufficient to satisfy the statutory standard for condonation of delay. Consequently, it exercised its discretionary power to condone the delay and restore the appeal for adjudication on the merits.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The delay of 1418 days is condoned, the High Court’s order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Calcutta High Court for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law.
Implications: The appellant’s appeal will now be heard on its merits by the High Court. The Supreme Court’s order is confined to the peculiar facts of misrepresentation by counsel and does not establish a broader precedent beyond reaffirming that extraordinary circumstances can justify condonation of substantial delays. No costs were awarded.
Order
1. Leave is granted limited to the question of the condonation of delay of 1418 days in preferring the appeal.
2. This appeal arises from the order dated 6-8-1998 passed by the High Court of Calcutta declining to condone the delay of 1418 days in preferring the appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal on 6-8-1998.
3. Dr Rajeev Dhawan, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has been victim of misrepresentation by his own counsel and in the circumstances the High Court ought to have condoned the delay.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respondent.
5. It is a case where the appellant was kept under the impression that the appeal had already been filed. When the appellant tried to contact his advocate Mr M.M Verma, to know about the progress of his case, he did not receive any satisfactory information. The appellant found that the progress of the matter was not satisfactory, he engaged another advocate, Mrs Heera Jain. On enquiry by Mrs Heera Jain, Advocate it came to her knowledge that no appeal was filed by the appellant before the Division Bench. Then she filed an appeal before the Division Bench with a petition to condone the delay in the circumstances mentioned above.
6. On the facts, we are of the view that though the period of delay is unduly long, the circumstances are also very unusual. The petitioner has been a victim of misrepresentation of facts by his own advocate and was kept under the impression that the appeal is pending before the High Court whereas no appeal was in fact filed by the advocate. It cannot be said that the appellant has not been vigilant in prosecuting the appeal. The cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to justify condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We accordingly condone the delay and remit the matter to the High Court for disposing of the appeal in accordance with law.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Alert