For The vs For The
2022 Latest Caselaw 979 Tri

                              1


              HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                    AGARTALA

                       IA NO.1 of 2022
                      in RSA 45 of 2022

                         BEFORE

      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

For the Appellant(s)        : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
                              Mr. K. Nath, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)       : Mr. S.Lodh, Adv.

                          ORDER

23.11.2022

[1] By means of filing this Interlocutory application

the petitioner who was the respondent before the Trial

court and appellant before the First Appellate Court has

applied for condonation of delay of 137 days in filing RSA

No.45 of 2022.

[2] Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. Advocate

appearing along with Mr. K. Nath, learned advocate for the

petitioner. Also heard Mr.S.Lodh, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent.

[3] It is submitted by Mr. Roy Barman, learned Sr.

counsel that the appellant is an old and ailing person who

lives in Kolkata. Learned counsel has also referred to

various other grounds which have been pleaded by the

appellant petitioner in paragraph 5 of his petition supported

by an affidavit dated 18.09.2022. Learned Sr. Counsel

urges the court for condoning the delay and hearing the

second appeal on merit.

[4] Mr.S.Lodh learned counsel appearing for the

respondent vehemently opposes the petition for

condonation of delay. Learned counsel submits that the

grounds stated by the petitioner are not genuine. Learned

counsel contends that the petitioner has failed to assign

good reasons for condonation of the inordinate delay of 137

days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel, therefore, urges

the Court to dismiss the petition.

[5] Considered the submissions of learned counsel

representing the parties. Perused the entire record available

before this Court.

[6] The respondent herein being the plaintiff, filed

the suit at the trial court for declaration of title and

confirmation of possession. The suit was decreed in favour

of the respondent plaintiff and the judgment and decree

passed by the trial court was affirmed by the First Appellate

Court against which the present petitioner being appellant

has preferred the second appeal before this Court.

[7] Having gone through the record, this Court is of

the prima facie view that there are arguable points in the

appeal and therefore, the appellant should be given an

opportunity to pursue the appeal before this Court.

[8] However, for delay caused, a sum of Rs.1200/-

has been imposed as cost on the appellant which shall be

paid by the appellant petitioner within 4 weeks to the

respondent through learned counsel representing the

respondent.

[9] In terms of the above, the petition for

condonation of delay stands allowed and the matter stands

disposed of.

JUDGE

Saikat Sarma