S. Talapatra - (1.)Heard Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the appellant.
(2.)This is an appeal under Sec. 100 of the CPC from the order dtd. 20/12/2018 delivered in Civil Misc.(Condonation)No.18 of 2018. By the said order dtd. 20/12/2018, the prayer for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal being Money Appeal No.01 of 2018 was dismissed. Consequentially, by the order dtd. 20/12/2018, delivered in Money Appeal No.01 of 2018, the appeal was declared infractuous. Being aggrieved, the appeal has been filed by the appellant.
(3.)Mr. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the appellant has submitted that the proposed substantial questions are as follows :
(i) whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

(ii) whether the decision of the learned trial court is erroneous due to the fact that the suit was not instituted against the "Union of India" under Sec. 79 of the CPC. The public officer who discharged their respective duties and functions in their official capacity as "Dean" have been sued directly helping the principal defendant namely the "Union of India" at bay, in the money suit.

Accordingly, Mr. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the appellant, the first appellate court ought to have condoned the delay looking at the merit of the case. Notwithstanding, he has fairly submitted that no explanation for the delay from 20/6/2017 to 20/12/2017 has been provided by the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay.

;