Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) Re : CAN 7838 of 2014 & CAN 7846 of 2014 These two applications are at the instance of the appellant no. 4 in the appeal. The first one is for recalling of the orders dated June 13, 1975 read with July 29, 1975 dismissing the second appeal. The other application is for condonation of delay of thirty-nine (39) years in preferring the fist application. The facts relevant for deciding these applications are as follows: The appellant nos. 1 to 6 filed a suit being the Title Suit No. 121 of 1969 before the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Midnapore claiming declaration of their title, in respect of the suit property, a tank, and decree for permanent injunction against the State of West Bengal and others. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit. However, on appeal by the defendant no. 1 State of West Bengal the 2nd Court of the Sub-Judge at Midnapore set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. It is the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court, which was subject-matter of challenge in the second appeal.
(2.) After the admission of second appeal, the Division Bench of this Court repeatedly directed the appellants to deposit the requisite for service of the notice of the appeal on the respondents, but the appellants did not comply with the said direction. Ultimately, by an order dated June 13, 1975 the Division Bench granted the appellants three weeks time to put in requisite for service of the notice of appeal failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. The appellants did not comply with the said order dated June 13, 1975 and consequently on July 29, 1975 the learned Additional Registrar of this Court recorded the dismissal of the appeal.
(3.) In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant no. 4, hereinafter referred to as the “applicant”, has alleged that it is the appellant no. 1, who used to look after all the affairs relating to the second appeal died on June 26, 1972 and in the absence of the appellant no. 1 there was none to look after the affairs relating to the second appeal pending before this Court. It appears that the appellant no. 3 had died on October 15, 1971 and his heirs were duly substituted in the appeal. It further appears that after dismissal of the suit, but before this application was filed even the appellant nos. 2, 5 and 6 have died. The applicant has alleged the original advocate representing of the appellants in the second appeal also died and the subsequent advocate engaged by the appellants, namely, Siva Prasad Dey also gave up practise. According to the applicant, it was only in May 2014 when he came to know about the aforementioned order passed by this Court, dismissing the appeal.;