In Rsa 46/2022 vs For
2023 Latest Caselaw 189 Tri

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                            I.A. 1/2022
                          In RSA 46/2022
For Applicant(s)       :   Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate
For Respondent(s)      :   Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate

Mr. K. Nath, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 28/02/2023 This is an application filed by the appellant-applicants under Order XLI Rule 3A of the CPC read with Order XLII Rule 1 of the CPC for condoning the delay of 15 years 309 days in preferring the second appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.08.2006 passed in case no. Title Appeal 12 of 2005. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicants. Also heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-OPs. The respondent-OPs have filed their written objection. The contention of the appellant-applicants is that the decree holder i.e. the plaintiffs had preferred an appeal being RSA 46 of 2006 before this court, which was disposed of by order dated 30.09.2015 with the following observations:-

"19. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the learned Court below was fully justified in holding that the adverse possession of Nripendra Kr. Datta had fructified into full title. In fact, the learned lower appellate Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to 60% of the market value of the land but since that portion of the decree has not been challenged by the respondents, this Court cannot set aside the same."

Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has submitted that the observations made in para 19 of the judgment has given the cause of action to the present appellant-applicants for filing the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2006 passed by the first appellate court.

I do not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicants. The appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2006 ought to have been filed within 3 (three) months from the date of said judgment, which the present appellant-applicants had failed. Further, the appellants herein failed to appreciate the judgment within a reasonable period and have filed the present second appeal in the last part of the year 2022.

Resultantly, I do not find sufficient reason to condone the inordinate delay of 15 years 309 days in preferring the appeal.

In view of the above, the instant application stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Saikat