Tripura High Court
Srimati Mira Debnath vs Sri Kanulal Debnath on 9 August, 2023
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.20/2023
Srimati Mira Debnath, daughter of Lt. Sridam Debnath, a resident of Village-
Paschim (West) Jalefa, Post Office-Sabroom, and District-South Tripura.
.........Revision Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
Sri Kanulal Debnath, son of Lt. Sridam Debnath, a resident of Village-Paschim
(West) Jalefa, Post Office and Police Station-Sabroom, and District-South
Tripura.
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Dasgupta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Date of hearing and judgment: 09th August, 2023.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. By the impugned order dated 10.02.2023, the learned Court of
Additional District Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom has allowed the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with order XLI Rule 3A of
the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, for short) by condoning 448 days of delay
in filing restoration application for restoration of the Title Appeal bearing
No.12 of 2019 which was dismissed for default vide order dated 08.03.2021
passed by the learned District Judge, South Tripura.
3. Petitioner has taken a plea that Title Suit No.02 of 2014 preferred
by the petitioner for declaration of right, title and interest over the scheduled
suit property and for recovery of possession was decreed on contest on
29.01.2019 in her favour. The respondent preferred an appeal which was
dismissed on 08.03.2021. Petitioner put the decree in execution under Order
XXI Rule 11 read with Rule 35 of the CPC. Respondent was asked to show-
cause as to why the petitioner should not be put in possession of the suit land
with the assistance of the Court. He entered appearance through Vakalatnama
and filed objection. After exhausting all formalities, a Surveyor was appointed
under Order XXVI Rule 18A of the CPC. Thereafter, the warrant of delivery of
possession was issued directing the Bailiff to put the decree-holder in
possession of the suit land. Thereafter, the respondent has preferred an
application under Order XLI Rule 19 of the CPC for restoration of the said
appeal after a delay of 449 days. It is submitted that the grounds taken by the
respondent are false and as such, the impugned order suffers from manifest
errors. During the said period, the respondent was attending the proceedings of
the Executing Court for 3(three) days. As such, the impugned order may be set
aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned
order. It is submitted that the Title Appeal was dismissed during the second
wave of the COVID, 2020. The learned Court has taken note of the directions
passed by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.03 of 2020
suspending the period of limitation during the COVID period. The learned
appellate Court took into consideration the explanation submitted by the
applicant/appellant due to his health complication and financial hardship owing
to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Considering the ratio of the
decisions cited by the parties and the law laid down by the Apex Court in
matters of interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, he took a lenient
and liberal view and condoned the delay as being not intentional so that the
appeal can be heard on merits.
5. It appears that the restoration application was filed on 29.06.2022,
i.e. only after one month of the extended period of limitation came to expire as
per the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ
Petition(C) No.03 of 2020 whereby the Apex Court had extended the period of
limitation for a further period of 90 days beyond 28.02.2022 which would
expire on 28.05.2022. It seems that the learned appellate Court has not taken
into note the final order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Apex Court regarding
extension of time limit for preferring appeal etc. due to Covid pandemic. As
such, it appears that there is not much delay after 28.05.2022 since as per the
dates of events indicated by the petitioner himself the restoration and
condonation application No.03 of 2022 was filed on 29.06.2022, i.e. about 31
days after that. As such, this Court does not find any perversity in the order
allowing condonation of delay in seeking restoration of the appeal. The appeal
is said to be pending adjudication. As such, this Court is of the view that no
interference is called for in the matter.
6. The instant petition is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
PULAK BANIK Date: 2023.08.10
17:27:43 +05'30'
