The court emphasized the need to consider the substantive ends of justice in condoning delays and highlighted the principles of adverse possession and calculation of possession length.

1. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel vice Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. challenging the order dated 26.08.2009 delivered in Misc. 2 of 2009 arising from Title Appeal No. 2 of 2009 as well as against the order dated 26.08.2009 delivered in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2009 by dismissing the appeal as consequence of the order 26.08.2009 passed in Misc. 2 of 2009.

3. At the time of admitting this appeal by the order dated 10.02.2012, the following substantial questions of law were formulated:

(i) Whether the earlier possession of the vendor of the appellant is required to be taken into account while calculating the length of possession in favour of the successive possessor in determining the adverse possession of the subsequent possessor?

(ii) Whether the starting date of possession is necessary to be pleaded and proved in a case where adverse possession is found to be established for a period more than the statutory period?

(iii) Whether the Court below committed error by refusing to accept the ground that the delay was caused due to fault on the part of the engaged counsel?

4. This Court has taken the substantial question No. 3 first for consideration as it relates to the rejection of the causes as assigned for condonation of delay of 52 days in preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree respectively dated 02.02.2009 and 12.02.2009 delivered in Title Suit No. 20 of 2004 by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Sonamura, West Tripura.

5. The brief fact is that the appellant filed the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction in the court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Sonamura, West Tripura. The defendants, the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 herein, contested the suit by filing the written statement challenging the pleadings therein. However, by the judgment dated 02.02.2009, the suit was dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 02.02.2009, the appellant presented an appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as there was delay of 52 days in presenting the said appeal which has been registered as Title Appeal No. 2 of 2009. In the said application for condonation of delay, being Misc. 2 of 2009, the causes as shown by the appellant for such delay is that while he was consulting with the engaged counsel namely, Koushik Roy, suddenly his father, the counsel’s father, expired and he was in bereavement and thereafter, he suffered from serious form of skin disease. As a result, there was a dislocation in collection of the certified copy of the judgment and decree and preparation of the memorandum of appeal along with the application for condoning the delay. Even they filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. along with the appeal. By the order dated 26.08.2009 delivered in Misc. 2 of 2009, the first appellate court has observed that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained to show that the delay as caused was not for the latches and negligent of the plaintiff-appellant but for reasons beyond his control. It has been also observed that why the appellant did not engage another counsel for filing the appeal has not been explained. Finally, on observing that the grounds displayed by the appellant are do not constitute sufficient cause, the prayer for condoning the delay was rejected, on placing reliance on the decision of the apex court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantanag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1353. It is well known that in that decision, the apex court has observe