- (1.)The two papers were moved before me. One is an application for condonation of delay in the submissions of the review application and another is stated to be an application for review of my judgment dated 17th May, 1985 (reported in AIR 1986 Cal 104), but which is actually a memorandum of review. By the said judgment I have dismissed the writ petition directed against Koran in limine. Thereafter these two "applications" have been filed.
(2.)So far as the condonation of delay is concerned, the time for making an application for review is 30 days. There is only one day's delay. It might be felt that only one day's delay may be condoned but the condonation of delay is not a matter of course. The petitioner must give proper explanation of even one day's delay. In this case in the petition the delay is sought to be explained by making the following averments : -
"That the applicant got hurt in the palm of his right hand on 13th June, 1985, got a stitch and a bandage and was advised not to move his right hand for some days. A medical certificate is enclosed marked as annexure 'A'".
The said annexure 'A' reads as follows : -
"Shree Vishudhanand Hospital and Research Institute 35 and 37, Burtolla Street. Calcutta 7 General Outdoor Deptt. (EMERGENCY) Dr. H. Poddar. 18 June 1985. No. 20139 Name - Chandmal Chopra - Age - 53 Yrs. This is to certify that Sri Chandmal Chopra aged 53 yrs. had got injured on 13-6-85 on the right little finger. One stitch and bandage was done on 13-6-85. He is advised to take rest for 4 days from that very day. Sd/- Illegible, 17-6-85."
It will be seen that there are inconsistencies between the averments in the petition and the medical certificate. In the petition it is stated that the applicant got hurt in the palm of his right hand whereas in the medical certificate it has been stated that he had got injured on the right little finger. In the petition the averment is that he is advised not to move his right hand for some days. In the medical certificate it is stated that he is advised to take rest for four days from that very day i.e., 15th June, 1985. Therefore, 1 cannot accept such statement. Moreover, it is to be seen that from 15 th June, 1985, four days mean up to 19th June, 1985. Therefore, according to such alleged advice, he was to take rest up to 19th June, 1985. Accordingly he could not have moved such application before 20th June if such medical advice was correct. But this application was moved on 18th June, 1985, by the petitioner in person. In my opinion, this is not a genuine ground. Further I am not satisfied that such a small injury could have prevented the petitioner from filing the application in Court on 17th i.e. the last day of limitation. On the 18th instant he appeared in Court and moved the application in person. From my personal observation also, 1 am satisfied that there was no injury which could disable him from moving any such application on 17th instant.
(3.)So far as the "application" for review is concerned actually it is a memorandum of review. It is to be pointed out that there is no application in support of the said memorandum. The only application filed along with the memorandum is the application for condonation of delay. There is no prayer therein for issuing a rule or for any order directing the hearing of the application for review. There is no averment in the said application also so far as review is concerned. Though it is stated in the memorandum of review that it is an application for review, there is in fact no such application.