- (1.) THIS appeal is a defective one. Defects are notified in the report of the Stamp Reporter dated 11th June, 2015. Those are curable defects. As such, leave is granted to the learned advocate -on -record of the appellant to cure those defects.
(2.) THOUGH it is reported by the Stamp Reporter that the appeal was filed 22 days beyond the statutory period, but we find that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
(3.) WE are informed by Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant that since the Stamp Reporter reported that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, his client has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Since we find that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the application filed for condonation of delay is redundant. The application for condonation of delay being CAN 5738 of 2015 is thus disposed of. Re: SAT 243 of 2015 We have heard Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant on the point of admission of this appeal at the stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;