Calcutta High Court Dismisses Recall Application: Reiterates Mandatory Filing of Certified Copies in Appeals and Emphasizes Temporary Relief Does Not Exempt Procedural Compliance

Court’s Decision:

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the application (CAN/3/2025) filed by the appellants to recall an earlier order dated December 23, 2024, which imposed a cost of ₹50,000. This cost was levied due to the appellants’ failure to file a certified copy of the impugned judgment dated October 18, 2023, even after being granted leave to file the appeal without it initially.

The court underscored that procedural compliance is not optional and that leave to file an appeal without a certified copy only provides temporary relief. It does not exempt the party from filing the required document later.

Facts:

1. The appellants had filed an appeal challenging an order passed on October 18, 2023.
2. On October 25, 2023, the appellants were granted leave by the High Court to file the appeal without a certified copy of the impugned judgment.
3. Despite this relief, the appellants failed to file the certified copy for over a year, until the High Court took note of this procedural lapse and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on December 23, 2024, payable to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority.
4. The appellants then filed CAN/3/2025, seeking recall of the December 23, 2024 order, arguing that they should not be penalized for the delay.

Issues:

1. Did the appellants’ conduct in delaying the filing of the certified copy justify the imposition of costs?
2. Can leave to file an appeal without a certified copy be interpreted as permanent exemption from filing it?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The appellants argued that the Appellate Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court do not explicitly mandate the filing of a certified copy once leave to file an appeal without it has been granted.
2. They relied on a Supreme Court ruling in Harsh Bhuwalka & Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Bajoria, where the apex court permitted filing of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) without certified copies. The appellants contended that this principle should apply to their case as well.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The State respondents opposed the application, emphasizing that the appellants’ delay of over a year in filing the certified copy demonstrated clear procedural non-compliance.
2. They argued that granting leave does not absolve the appellants from filing the certified copy subsequently, as mandated by the Appellate Side Rules.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Appellate Side Rules:
   • Order XLI of the Appellate Side Rules governs the filing of appeals. It mandates that every appeal be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or decree being appealed against unless the appellate court expressly dispenses with it.
   • In this case, the High Court granted temporary leave to file the appeal without a certified copy but did not permanently dispense with this requirement.
2. Temporary Nature of Leave:
   • The court clarified that leave to file an appeal without a certified copy merely defers the obligation; it does not waive it entirely. The appellants were still required to file the certified copy promptly upon obtaining it.
3. Distinction from Supreme Court Rules:
   • The court noted that the procedural rules governing the filing of SLPs in the Supreme Court are not the same as those applicable to the Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the precedent in Harsh Bhuwalka could not be applied to the present case.

Precedent Analysis:

The appellants’ reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Harsh Bhuwalka was dismissed by the court. It highlighted that the procedural rules for SLPs differ significantly from the High Court’s Appellate Side Rules. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that the two sets of rules were comparable, making the precedent irrelevant to this case.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The court focused on the appellants’ conduct following the grant of leave. It found that despite the temporary relief, the appellants failed to act diligently by not filing the certified copy for over a year.
2. The court held that such laxity undermined judicial discipline and procedural integrity, warranting the imposition of costs.
3. The judgment emphasized that procedural requirements, like filing a certified copy, are mandatory and non-compliance cannot be excused indefinitely.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the application (CAN/3/2025) and refused to recall its earlier order. It reiterated that procedural compliance is essential to ensure the smooth functioning of the judiciary. The appellants were directed to pay the cost of ₹50,000 as previously ordered.

Implications:

1. The judgment reinforces that procedural rules must be strictly adhered to and that temporary reliefs granted by the court cannot be misconstrued as permanent exemptions.
2. It sets a precedent for litigants regarding the importance of diligence and timely compliance with procedural requirements.
3. The decision underscores the distinction between different procedural rules, such as those governing High Courts and the Supreme Court, making it clear that precedents must be applied contextually.

Also Read – Supreme Court Quashes Charges of Abetment to Suicide Against Loan Recovery Agent; Holds Evidence Lacks Mens Rea and Proximity Required Under Section 306 IPC