AD-15 Ct No.16 16.09.2026 TN SAT 270 of 2025 IA No: CAN 1 of 2026 Assistant Engineer (E) Tamluk Group Electricity Supply and others Vs. Smt. Manasi Bhowmik and others Mr. Sumit Kumar Panja (via VC), Mr. Sumit Ray …..for the appellants Mr. Tarique Quasimmudin, Ms. Zainab Tahur …..for the respondents 1. Although a defect has been pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, we find no such defect in the appeal. 2. Accordingly, the same is taken up for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by deeming that no such defect exists. 3. The present second appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated August 25, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, whereby the learned first appellate court dismissed Title Appeal No. 28 of 2022 on the ground of delay. 4. The suit was filed for partition and ancillary reliefs and was ultimately decreed in final form. Against the said judgment and final decree, a title appeal was filed by the appellants with an application for condonation of a delay of about eight years in preferring the same. 2 5. It is evident from the judgment of the first appellate court that no plausible explanation was given for such inordinate delay and allegation has been made against the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants in the first appellate court, saying that the said learned Advocate did not inform the appellant about the decreeing of the suit. 6. The first appellate court adverted to the contention raised in the petition for condonation of delay succinctly and dismissed the application for condonation of delay without being satisfied about the explanation furnished for such delay. 7. We are satisfied that there is no plausible explanation for such inordinate delay and there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and consequentially the appeal itself. 8. Since the condonation of delay essentially involves questions of fact and a plausible view was taken by the first appellate court, there is no substantial question of law involved and, as such, we do not find any merit in the present second appeal. 9. Accordingly, SAT 270 of 2025 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2026 also stands dismissed. 11. There will be no order as to costs. 3 12. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Sandip Kumar De, J.)