Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ
Sukesh Chandra Saha – Appellant
Versus
Parimal Saha – Respondent
RSA No.03 of 2026|CRP No.14 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhijit Sengupta
For the Respondents: Dilip Kumar Das Chawdhury

A court must adopt a justice-oriented approach in procedural matters; an application for substitution of legal heirs filed within sixty days of abatement requires no separate condonation of delay, and substantial justice dictates that litigants should not be deprived of a hearing on merits due to counsel's failures.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - S. 5 - Order XXII Rule 4 CPC - Condonation of delay - Substitution of legal representatives - Appellate Court dismissed application for substitution and condonation of delay without considering that application was filed within 60 days of abatement - Legal representatives do not need Section 5 condonation if substitution is sought within 60 days post-abatement period - Dismissal for lack of Section 5 petition is patently illegal. (Paras 35-43, 47)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Ex-parte decree - Setting aside - Litigants should not be denied opportunity to contest on merits due to counsel's withdrawal without notice, especially when parties are senior citizens or of unsound mind - Liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is required to ensure justice. (Paras 51-55)

Facts of the case:
The appellants/petitioners were defendants in a title suit who were set ex-parte after their counsel withdrew. The suit was decreed against them. An appeal and a limitation condonation application were filed by them nearly 23 months later. During the appeal, one defendant died, and his legal heirs filed a substitution application within 60 days of abatement. The lower appellate court dismissed the substitution for lack of a Section 5 limitation application and dismissed the appeal for lack of sufficient explanation for the delay.

Findings of Court:
The Court held the lower appellate court erred in requiring a separate condonation application for substitution filed within the 60-day window following abatement. It also observed that parties should not be penalized for a counsel's unauthorized withdrawal or lack of digital savvy, especially given the substantial property stakes.

Issues: Whether the lower appellate court correctly applied the law regarding the substitution of legal representatives upon death and whether the explanation for delay in filing the appeal constituted 'sufficient cause' under the Limitation Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The provision of abatement must be construed strictly, but prayers for setting aside abatement and substitution must be considered liberally. Substantial justice demands that a litigant should not be denied a hearing on merits unless there is gross negligence or deliberate inaction, which was not the case here.

Result: Appeals and Revision allowed; Impugned orders set aside; Matter restored for hearing on merits.

Table of Content
1. background facts regarding the title suit and initial proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. procedural history of the appeal delay and dismissal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
3. arguments presented by the parties. (Para 25 , 26)
4. legal analysis concerning limitation and substitution of legal heirs. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
5. application of justice-oriented principles and precedents for condonation. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
6. final orders and disposal of the proceedings. (Para 58 , 59 , 60)

JUDGMENT & ORDER

1. As the parties to these two proceedings are one and the same, and as they both arise out of the same Title Appeal No.19 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur, they are being disposed of by this common Order.

Background Facts:

2. The first petitioner in CRP No.14/2026, who is also the first appellant in RSA No.03/2026 is the first Defendant in Title Suit 02 of 2021 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Udaipur, Gomati District.

3. The other petitioners in CRP No.14/2026 and the other appellants in RSA No.03/2026 are legal heirs of Lt. Narayan Saha, who was the second Defendant in the said suit.

4. The parties will henceforth be referred to as per their array in the suit.

Title Suit 02 of 2021:

5. The said suit had been filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein to declare his right, title and interest in the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of the same.

He contended that the suit schedule property belonged to his mother Smt. Soudamini Saha, that she allowed Manoranjan Saha, the father of the Defendants to stay on the said land on condition that he would vacate it as and when demanded by her, that both died subsequently, and then the Defendants occupied the said land on same terms and conditions. He contended that her name is recorded in the record of rights vide CS Khatian No.1353 of mouza Udaipur Town with a remark in the Remark column that Manoranjan Saha was a permissive possessor. He contended that the Defendants are trespassers and are liable to be evicted from the said land.

The Written Statement filed by defendants:

6. The Defendants had filed a Written Statement opposing the grant of relief to the plaintiff/respondent herein.

The Defendants denied the plea of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property belonged to his mother Smt. Soudamini Saha. They contended that the land was Government land, and their predecessor by name Manoranjan Saha along with another had occupied it. According to them, in a Khatian, the names of their predecessor Manoranjan Saha and one Gopi Ranjan Chakraborty were recorded as unlawful occupiers, and that the said Khatian did not mention the name of the mother of the plaintiff Smt. Soudamini Saha.

7. However their Advocate Sri Jayanta Prasad Deb withdrew himself from the suit by filing a petition before the Trial Court on 19.12.2022 which was allowed on 01.02.2023. An order was passed on 20.03.2023 making them ex parte in the suit.

8. Subsequently, after considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, Title Suit 02 of 2021 was decreed on 22.08.2023.

Civil Misc. (Condo) 19 of 2025 and Title Appeal 19 of 2025:

9. The Defendants filed Title Appeal No.19 of 2025 before the District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur along with an application being Civil Misc. (Condo) 19 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 23 months 8 days in filing the said Appeal.

10. In Civil Misc. (Condo) 19 of 2025, they contended that they had engaged one Sri S.K. Bhattacharjee as their counsel in the suit to conduct the case on their behalf, but he left the State and handed over the records to another Advocate Sri Jayanta Prasad Deb. According to them, he withdrew himself from the suit as their Advocate by filing a pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALAM.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJSukesh Chandra Saha – AppellantVersusParimal Saha – RespondentRSA No.03 of 2026|CRP No.14 of 2026

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ
Sukesh Chandra Saha – Appellant
Versus
Parimal Saha – Respondent
RSA No.03 of 2026|CRP No.14 of 2026