For vs For
2022 Latest Caselaw 234 Tri

                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                              RSA. No. 09 of 2022
For Appellant(s)       :   Mr. B. Majumder, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)      :   None.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 25/02/2022

Heard.

The present second appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.09.2021 in case No. Civil Misc (Condonation) 11 of 2021 and order dated 06.09.2021 in case No. T.A. No. 06 of 2021 passed consecutively by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala and against the impugned judgment of preliminary decree dated 17.02.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura relating to case No.T.S.(P) 86 of 2015 and against the final decree dated 21.12.2019, respectively, relating to case No. T.S.(P)86 of 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala and against the order dated 17.12.2021 relating to case No. CRP. No.91 of 2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court.

The said order dated 06.09.2021 is a consequential order to Civil Misc (Codonation) 11 of 2021 dated 06.09.2011. In the said condonation application, the I.A. has been dismissed and as consequence thereof, the appeal cannot be entertained and thus, the same has been rejected.

The second appeal to be preferred under Section-100 of the CPC and the substantial questions of law needs to be framed. The appellant in the present appeal has framed the substantial question of law, which deals with the suit and the appeal is not dealt with by the appellant. Against the order dated 06.09.2021 in Civil Misc (Condonation) 11 of 2021, which is the order impugned, no second appeal lies under Section-100 of the CPC and thus, this Court has no hesitation to say that the present second appeal is maintainable against the said interlocutory application and accordingly, the present second appeal stands dismissed.

However, it is needless to observe that the appellant is at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

JUDGE

A. Ghosh