1. This appeal, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), is directed against the judgment and order, dated 16.7.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in T.A. No. 08/2010, whereby and whereunder, the learned District Judge rejected the petition for condonation of delay, preferred by the appellants-defendants.

2. The respondents, as plaintiffs, instituted a title suit, seeking right, title, interest and recovery of possession in respect of the suit land, against the defendants. The defendants, as appellants, contested the claim of the plaintiffs by filing written statement. But, as the written statement was not filed within time, the learned trial Judge refused to accept the same and accordingly the suit proceeded ex parte. Consequently, an ex parte judgment and decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants, as petitioners, thereafter, filed a petition for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree and the said prayer was rejected.

Dissatisfied with the ex parte judgment and decree, dated 6.3.2009, passed in T.S. No. 103/2007 aforesaid, the defendants filed an application, under order DC, rule 13 of CPC along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, i.e., Misc. (Condonation) No. 19/2009. The trial court rejected the condonation petition and dismissed the said miscellaneous case as well as the petition for restoration, i.e., Misc. (Restoration) No.20/2009 for want of steps. The darned counsel, appearing for the appellant-defendants again filed a petition for restoration of the said case [Misc. (Restoration) No.20/2009] along with a petition for condonation of delay of 190 days, on the ground that the appellants-defendants did not receive information regarding dismissal of the restoration petition and that due to illness he could not take steps in time. The said petition for restoration was registered as Misc. (Restoration) Case No.48/2009 and the condonation petition was registered as Misc. (Condonation) No.47/2009. On 21.1.2010, on which date, hearing of the miscellaneous case regarding condonation of delay was fixed, the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants filed a Hazira but, on being called, the learned counsel was not found present in the court. Therefore, the learned trial Judge rejected the condonation petition, i.e., Misc. (Condonation) No.47/2009 and the restoration petition, i.e., Misc. (Restoration) No.48/2009, vide order, dated 21.1.2010.

Aggrieved by the ex parte judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 103/2007 and also failing to get the ex parte decree vacated, the appellant-defendants preferred an appeal, being Title Appeal No.08/2010 before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, along with a petition for condonation of delay of 360 days in preferring the appeal, on the grounds that due to absence of the learned counsel and failure of the clerk of the counsel to take necessary steps, the delay was caused in preferring the appeal. According to the appellant-defendants, they are poor cultivators and labourers and they have been possessing the suit land since 1990 through their predecessor-in-interest on the basis of purchase from the owner of the land. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge, rejected the petition for condonation of delay and, thus, refused to admit the appeal, being Title Appeal No.08/2010, in which the said condonation petition was filed.

Challenging the said order of rejection of the condonation petition, filed in respect of the first appeal, i.e., Title Appeal No.08/2010, the appellants have come up with this second appeal, on the ground that, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the first appellate court committed error by failing to appreciate that there was no negligence or lapses on the part of the appellants, who were required to rely on the engaged counsel and his clerk, in approaching the first appellate court. It is the contention of the appellant-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document