A.K. GOSWAMI By this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act v. Ja siruddin Talukdar

I have heard Mr. DCK Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner/appell ant and Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel, who has entered appearance for the so le respondent. Mr. Goswami has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this application for condonation of delay. According to him, there is no power of condonation of delay vested in the appellate Court and this proposition of la w is concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India vs Ja siruddin Talukdar, reported in (2011) 2 GLR 832. Therefore, he contends that thi s application being not maintainable, the same may be rejected at the threshold and consequently, the accompanying appeal be also dismissed. Mr. DCK Hazarika, learned counsel for petitioner/appellant has also subm itted that the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent may not be incorrect in view of the judgment in Jasiruddin Talukdar (supra). This Court in Jasiruddin Talukdar (supra) was confronted with the question as to whether there is any power provided to this Court to condone the delay in filin g of appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, for shor t, the Act. After an elaborate discussion on the related provisions of the Act, prov ision of Order 41 Rule 3-A of the CPC, provision contained in Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 as well as following the law laid down by the Apex Cour t in the judgments noticed in Jasiruddin Talukdar(supra), this Court concluded t hat the legislature had intended to exclude the provision of Section 5 of the Li mitation Act, 1963 or to provide power to condone delay in filing appeal against an award of the Railway Claims Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid, this misc. application praying for condonation of delay in filing the connected appeal is dismissed. No cost.