Basudev Panigrahi, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Pattanayak, the learned Advocate in support of the application.
(2.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed against the order passed by the learned S.D.M., Haldia, Midnapore in B.C.A. Case No. 10 of 1992 rejecting the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the S.D.O., Haldia against the order of the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Sutahata, in B.C. Case No. 82/73 dated 30.10.91. It has been stated, inter alia, that after the conclusion of the case by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Sutahata, the petitioner could not ascertain the result of the litigation and the B.L. & R.O.s clerk promised the petitioner to inform the result of the litigation. With such hope and expectation the petitioner waited for a quite long time and had come know only on 6th April, 1992. After having come to know about the result he filed an application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment on 7.4.92. Immediately after obtaining the certified copy he contacted the lawyer of this Court who advised him to file an appeal before the S.D.O., Haldia. In the process, there was some delay and in case the delay is not condoned, his substantive right shall, however, be defeated. There was no affidavit-in-opposition to this application before the appellate authority. But the appellate authority was, however, not inclined to accept the plea of the appellant and accordingly rejected the petition for condonation of delay.
(3.) Mr. Pattanayak, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has strongly urged that the Court below has taken a pedantic approach in rejecting the petitioners plea. It has been, however, contended that the Courts do exist to advance the cause of justice but not to hinder it. While considering the prayer for condonation of delay the Court should take pragmatic approach as to under what circumstances the petitioner failed to file the appeal in time. In this case the petitioner has, however, made out a ground as to how he was prevented from filing appeal. It is not necessary for the applicant to explain the whole of the period between the date of the judgment till the date of filing appeal. In this case there was sufficient ground as indicated above for non-filing of the appeal in time.;