Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
Aparesh Kumar Singh
Soma Das, W/O Sri Subrata Das – Appellant
Versus
Indrajit Debnath, S/O. Lt. Motilal Debnath – Respondent
ORDER :
Aparesh Kumar Singh, C.J.
Heard Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel together with Mr. D. Debnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nitai Chaudhuri, learned counsel for the respondent.
[2] By the impugned order dated 10.04.2024 passed in Civil Misc. (Condo) 02/2023, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sepahijala, Sonamura, has refused to condone the delay of 406 days in seeking restoration of Title Suit No. 160/2017 which was dismissed for default on 19.02.2022. Upon notice, respondent has appeared through learned counsel, Mr. Nitai Chaudhuri.
[3] Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner submits that the suit was initially transferred from West Tripura District to Sepahijala District on account of territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, the sole plaintiff/petitioner who is a lady had to engage a new counsel before the learned Sepahijala District Court for conducting the case. He submits that the plaintiff/petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the suit only upon information supplied by the advocate clerk on 20.12.2022. Thereafter, immediately she applied for obtaining certified copy of the order of dismissal. The application for restoration was filed on 10.05.
The court upheld the trial court's refusal to condone the 406-day delay in restoring the suit due to the absence of sufficient cause and credibility issues regarding the plaintiff's claims.
A court's refusal to condone delay was justified based on the absence of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Point of Law - It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of court Section 5 of Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within ....
Litigants are not penalized for their Advocate's negligence; restoration of a suit can be granted based on demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance.
The court established that substantial delays in restoration applications require rigorous justification, ensuring all parties are afforded the opportunity to participate and contest effectively.
Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC allow restoration of suits for substantial justice without a formal application for condonation of delay.
Litigants must take responsibility for their legal representation; negligent conduct by an advocate does not negate a party's obligation to remain vigilant about their legal proceedings.
Approaching the court expeditiously and reluctance to condone unexplained delays and inordinate laches in seeking remedies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
