For vs For
2021 Latest Caselaw 733 Tri

                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA

                 IA No. 01 of 2020 In LA.App 02 of 2021

For Applicant(s)              : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s)             : Mr. P. Gautam, Adv.

Mr. S. Saha, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

Order 19.07.2021

Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the

applicant as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.2.

This is a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for

condoning the delay of 301 days, but according to the stamp reporter's

report that total delay in filing the appeal under Section 54 from the

judgment and award dated 08.05.2019 delivered in LA(Ref) 77 of 2017

by the LA Judge, South Tripura, Belonia is 331 days.

Both the respondents filed their objections. The respondent

No.1 had stated that even though the applicant has shown the delay of

301 days but the actual delay is of 499 days. The cause of such delay is

attributable to the applicant and to none. As such, the delay which has

not been properly, sufficiently and correctly explained, cannot be

condoned.

The respondent No.2 in his reply has contended that as the

delay is deliberate and the appeal is bereft of merit, the delay may not

be condoned. If the condonation is allowed it would cause gross

prejudice to the respondents.

Having perused the causes assigned by the applicant, it

appears that the delay has taken place for multiple factors including

lockdown that has been endorsed for curbing the spread of contagion.

Having regard to that aspect of the matter in particular, this

court is of the view that the delay is liable to be condoned. Accordingly,

the same is condoned.

In the result, this application stands allowed and disposed

of.

JUDGE

Dipak