Calcutta High Court
Civil Procedure and EvidenceAdministrative and Public Law

Counsel’s failure to seek liberty to refile should not defeat a litigant’s claim.

TAPAN KUMAR DEY AND ANR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Calcutta High CourtJUDGMENT: September 24, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Counsel’s failure to seek liberty to refile should not defeat a litigant’s claim.. TAPAN KUMAR DEY AND ANR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.. Calcutta High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners’ original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal was withdrawn after their counsel identified errors in it and orally sought withdrawal. The Tribunal recorded the withdrawal, but counsel had not asked for liberty to file a fresh application.

Source reference: para. 3–5

The petitioners then filed Original Application No. 378 of 2026, which the Tribunal held was not maintainable because liberty to refile had not been granted.

Source reference: para. 3–5

They challenged the Tribunal’s order dated 23 March 2026 before the High Court

Source reference: para. 3–5
02

Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal’s order refusing to entertain the fresh Original Application should be set aside where the earlier application was withdrawn because of errors, but counsel did not seek express liberty to refile

Source reference: para. 4–6

2. Whether counsel’s failure to request such liberty should prevent the litigants from pursuing their claim in a fresh application

Source reference: para. 6–9
03

Law Applied

The Court referred to Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, concerning withdrawal of suits, and specifically to the provision allowing a court, where a suit is liable to fail because of a formal defect, to permit withdrawal with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same subject matter.

Source reference: para. 7

The Court also applied the principle that a lawyer’s mistake should not, in the circumstances of the case, deprive a litigant of a valuable right to pursue a legal claim. No precedent was cited.

Source reference: para. 6, 9
04

Reasoning

The Court accepted that the first application was withdrawn because counsel had identified errors and taken responsibility for them. Although counsel failed to request express permission to file a fresh application, the Court considered that denying the petitioners the opportunity to pursue their claim would cause them to lose a valuable right because of counsel’s mistake.

Source reference: para. 6, 8–9

It therefore adopted a pragmatic and lenient approach and set aside the Tribunal’s order.

Source reference: para. 10
05

Holding

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the Tribunal’s order dated 23 March 2026.

Original Application No. 378 of 2026 was restored to the Tribunal’s file, and the parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 14 October 2026.

Source reference: para. 10–12
Calcutta High Court

Original Court PDF

TAPAN KUMAR DEY AND ANRvsUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Calcutta High Court · September 24, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment