01.09.2026 Ct. No.652 D/L.19 ( NMD) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) C.O. 4053 of 2025 Sri Sudeb Chandra Bhattacharyya Vs. Sri Salil Chandra Bhattacharjee Mr. Mahadeb Ghosh, Mr. Pratim Ghosh …for the Petitioners 1. Affidavit-of-service, filed by the learned advocate in Court today, is taken on record. 2. An order of the learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Serampore, District Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No. 82 of 2024, is under challenge in the instant revision. 3. Notice served upon the opposite party has been “refused”. 4. Considering the postal endorsement over the notice as „refused‟, the service is considered as completed in accordance with law. The principle underlying such service is that a party cannot, by deliberately refusing to accept a notice duly tendered at his known address, defeat or postpone the legal consequence of service. Service of process is intended to afford a reasonable and legally sufficient opportunity of knowledge of the 2 proceeding; it is not a device by which a litigant may, through his own conduct, frustrate the progress of the proceeding. The doctrine of constructive or deemed service rests upon this broader principle that the law does not permit a person to take advantage of his own refusal or deliberate avoidance. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has indicated that in the impugned order the Court has not condoned the delay of 100 days in filing the said appeal filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff in the suit. 6. He further submits that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Serampore, before whom the suit filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff being Title Suit No. 134 of 2021 is now pending, though initially granted an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff but finally has vacated the said order. 7. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/petitioner intended to file the Misc. Appeal against the order of vacating the injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Serampore. However, the plaintiff/petitioner was prevented by sufficient reasons to file the said appeal within the statutory period of 3 limitation. Therefore, delay of 100 days was taken place. 8. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that all reasons for such delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Court had been sufficiently explained. That however, had not been duly considered by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Serampore, while passing the impugned order. 9. Having considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff and perused the order of the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Serampore, dated 23rd September, 2025, this Court is of considered opinion that the trial court has come to an erroneous finding that no sufficient reasons have been explained by the plaintiff/petitioner to justify the delay of 100 days in filing the said Misc. Appeal before the learned Court. On the contrary, it is found that sufficient and cogent reasons are shown in order to explain the delay of 100 days, in filing the Misc. Appeal by the present petitioner. 4 10. The rules of limitation are founded upon considerations of certainty and finality, but the law of limitation is not intended to operate as a penal mechanism for shutting out adjudication where the litigant has shown sufficient cause for the delay. The expression “sufficient cause” is required to receive a pragmatic, justice-oriented and contextual construction, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The decisive consideration is not the arithmetical length of the delay but whether the explanation furnished discloses a bona fide and reasonable cause which prevented the party from approaching the appellate forum within time. 11. A Court considering such an application is, therefore, required to examine the explanation in its entirety and determine whether the delay is attributable to culpable negligence, want of bona fides or a deliberate disregard of the statutory period, or whether it arose from circumstances which, in the setting of the particular case, furnish a sufficient explanation. Where the latter is established, a liberal and justice-oriented approach is warranted, particularly because 5 refusal to condone the delay may have the effect of terminating the appellate remedy without an adjudication of the substantive dispute. 12. The expression “sufficient cause” is deliberately elastic and is required to be construed in a manner which enables the Court to advance substantial justice rather than defeat adjudication on merits by adopting an unduly technical or pedantic approach. In this regard the following judgments of the Supreme Court may be referred to; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag versus Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan versus M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649. 13. For the reasons as discussed above, the impugned order is found liable to be set aside. 14. On the premise above, let this revisional application be allowed by directing as follows:- (i) The impugned order dated 23rd September, 2025 passed by the learned 6 Additional District Judge, First Court at Serampore, District:-Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No. 82 of 2024 is set aside. (ii) Delay of 100 days by the present petitioner/plaintiff in filing Misc. Appeal No. 82 of 2024 is hereby condoned. (iii) Let the learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Serampore, Hooghly takeup Misc. Appeal No. 82 of 2024 filed by the present petitioner before the same and determine the issue involved, after hearing all the parties in the said appeal. (iv) Let the learned Additional District Judge dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. 15. Accordingly, the present revisional application is allowed and disposed of. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)