28.07.2026 Item no. DL42 Court No. 16 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. SAT 99 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 CAN 3 of 2026 In the matter of : KSHITISH DEBNATH & ORS. …Appellants VS. HARIHAR DEBNATH …Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Avijit Ganguly …Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Subhrajyoti Ghosh …Advocate 1. CAN 1 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Although it has been mentioned in the application that the delay is of about 390 days, learned counsel for the respondent rightly points out that the delay is of more than two years. 2. Even from the report of the Additional Stamp Reporter, we find that the delay is of about 688 days. 3. From the application, however, we find long gaps in the chain of explanation. 4. For example, it has been stated that the impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court Page 2 was passed on February 28, 2024 whereas a title suit was wrongly filed challenging the same in the year 2025. The number of the title suit is given as 511 of 2025, which indicates that it was well into the year 2025 that the said appeal was filed, without even disclosing the exact date of such filing. Even proceeding on the premise that the suit was filed some time in 2025, there was a delay of almost one year in presentation of the suit itself, which remains completely unexplained in the condonation application. 5. Even thereafter, the said suit was allegedly disposed of on January 15, 2026, whereas the present appeal was presented only on or about July 13, 2026. The delay in-between has also not been properly explained. 6. In any event, it does not appear to be bona fide on the part of the appellants, irrespective of the quality of the legal advice obtained by the appellants, that a suit was construed to be an alternative remedy of a second appeal. We could still have understood if the suit was filed challenging the decree of the Trial Court before a collateral forum on the ground of fraud or some other ground akin thereto. However, filing of a suit challenging an appellate decree passed by a Page 3 higher forum is not acceptable as a bona fide recourse. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any plausible explanation for the delay in preferring the appeal after 688 days. 8. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is dismissed on contest; thereby refusing to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. 9. Consequentially, SAT 99 of 2026 stands dismissed as time-barred. 10. CAN 2 of 2026 and CAN 3 of 2026 are also dismissed consequentially. 11. There will be no order as to costs. 12. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 13. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. ) ( Supratim Bhattacharya, J. )