The suit out of which this revisional application under section 115 of CPC arises was filed by Smti Dhiraja Devi, one of the respondents herein against the petitioner in the Court of learned Munsiff, Agartala, West Tripura for khas possession of the suit premises, and for arrears of rent. The suit was numbered as TS No. 5 of 1972 and when it was in progress respondent Nos. 2 to 8 filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC on 7.8.91 for adding them as plaintiffs. But learned Munsiff by his order dated 17.6.83 rejected that prayer.

2. Aggrieved by that order, the present respondents filed a revision petition (Civil Revision No. 85 of 1983) before this Court against the aforesaid order dated 17.6.83. But when this revision petition was taken up for hearing it was detected that an order under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC refusing to grant leave is appellable under Order 43 Rule 1, clause (1) of the CPC. No sooner had this defect was pointed out then Mr. MC Deb Roy, the learned counsel for the present respondents submitted before this Court that he made a genuine mistake in filing this application before this Court, as in fact an appeal ought to have been filed before the appellate Court. It was also submitted by Mr. Deb Roy, learned counsel for the respondents that the plaintiff and her assignees were so long proceeding the case bonafide in this Court and accordingly the period of limitation should be condoned under section 14 of the Limitation Act. This Court accepted his submission and directed that the revision petition be returned to Mr. MC Deb Roy to enable him for presenting the same as an appeal before the appellate Court. But the prayer for condonation under section 14 of the Limitation Act was left to the appellate Court for its decision.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court the revision petition was returned to Mr. MC Deb Roy, learned Advocate on 21.5.86 and Sri Deb Roy filed the appeal before the Court of District Judge on 22.5.86. Thereafter, he also filed an application for condonation of the delay under section 14 of the Limitation Act on 16.6.86. On 15.12.86 the respondents filed another application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.

4. The appeal was initially filed in the Court of learned District Judge who transferred the appeal to the Court of learned Additional District Judge Mr. Durgadas Purkayastba who after hearing the learned counsel of both the parties allowed the prayer for condonation subject to payment of cost of Rs. 100/- and admitted the appeal. The amendment being not pressed, it was rejected.

5. It may be mentioned here that no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, however, contended that the learned Additional District Judge should not have allowed the prayer for condonation as it would be apparent from the certified copy of the order of learned Munsiff dated 17.6.83 that the respondent did not submit the prayer for certified copy of the order of learned Munsiff within the prescribed time. It has been very strongly urged by Mr. Banerjee that the respondents are not entitled to get any sort of relief under the provision of section 14 of the Limitation Act primarily because the respondents filed the revision petition after the period of appeal. The precise submission of Mr. Banerjee is that the respondents are entitled to get the benefit of the section 14 of the Limitation Act only for the period which was spent during the pendency of the revision petition before the High Court. But according to him even if that period is excluded, the respondents' prayer for condonation could not be considered as it would be apparent from the certified copy of the order of learned Munsiff dated 17.6.83 that the respondents made the prayer for certified copy after the expiry of the period of appeal. In support of his contention Mr. Banerjee has placed reliance in the decision rendered in the case of Somnath Banerjee & others vs. Bivek Salv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document