Advocate misled client about filing intra-court appeal, causing 1418-day delay; delay condoned and appeal restored for merits hearing

Delay of 1418 days in filing an intra-court appeal was condoned where the appellant established "sufficient cause" by showing he was misled by his own advocate into believing the appeal had been filed and was pending, though no appeal had in fact been instituted. The SC held that, despite the length of delay, the circumstances were exceptional and the appellant could not be treated as lacking diligence in pursuing the remedy. The delay was therefore condoned, the impugned order refusing condonation was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the HC for disposal of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues Involved: Condonation of delay in preferring the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta.

Summary:
The Supreme Court granted leave limited to the question of condonation of a 1418-day delay in preferring the appeal arising from the High Court of Calcutta's order. The Division Bench had dismissed the appeal due to the delay, which was not condoned initially.

The appellant, represented by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Senior Advocate, argued that the delay was due to misrepresentation by the appellant's own counsel. The appellant was under the impression that the appeal had been filed, but upon investigation by a new advocate, it was revealed that no appeal had actually been filed before the Division Bench.

The Court acknowledged the unusually long delay but found the circumstances to be exceptional. The appellant had been misled by their advocate and had taken steps to inquire about the case's progress. The Court held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay and remitted the matter back to the High Court for further proceedings.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant had acted diligently once aware of the situation. No costs were awarded in the case.

---