RVW/183/2024 of EMARAT MOLLA Vs PANKAJ MONDAL AND ORS on 24 August 2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner/review applicant has submitted that the instant application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the review application No.183 of 2024. There is a delay of 2365 days. He has served notices upon the respondents. One affidavit of service has been filed showing that notices were received by one of the respondents on 4th September, 2024 and another was on 27th August, 2024. It further appears from the record that initially four notices were returned to sender as the addressees could not be located.

2. In paragraph 4 of the instant application, it has been stated that the petitioner being an aged person has fallen in illness on and from 17th January, 2017 till filing of the application. Due to his several diseases like abdominal pain and heart pain, the petitioner was advised by the doctors to take bed rest. The petitioner was not in a position to visit the lawyer’s chamber from his residential place which is far more than 15 kilometers. The doctor advised the petitioner to abstain from train and bus journey for more than one hour as well as he was not in a position to walk. After a long suffering from illness, the petitioner is recovered partly from his illness and by the advice of the doctor, the petitioner visited the lawyer’s chamber with the assistance of his son Rabiul Islam on 19th June, 2024. The applicant, however, due to such illness for long years, could not engage any person to look after his case. In the aforesaid circumstances, 2365 days delay in filing the review application has been caused.

3. It appears from the record that only one certificate of doctor has been annexed. There is no document to show that the petitioner was suffering from serious illness for which a delay of 2365 days occurred. However, it further appears that the petitioner’s son assisted him to go to the chamber of the lawyer. If there is an able-bodied son to look after him, then it is not understandable as to why the said son did not take up the matter with the concerned lawyer.

4. The reason given by the petitioner is not acceptable and convincing. The petitioner did not file any document showing that he was suffering from serious illness apart from one doctor’s certificate stating that the patient was medically unfit and unable to doing normal daily activities without any person’s help.

5. I have not convinced with the reasons given for condoning of 2365 days delay. As such, I am not inclined to condone the delay.

6. Accordingly the instant application, being CAN 1 of 2024, stands dismissed.

7. In view of dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the review petition and all connected applications also stand disposed of.

8. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)