Sri Bishnu Debbarma vs Shri Dhiresh Lodh
2024 Latest Caselaw 65 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sri Bishnu Debbarma vs Shri Dhiresh Lodh on 22 January, 2024

                                 Page 1 of 2




                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                             CRP No.05 of 2024
Sri Bishnu Debbarma
                                                          ......... Petitioner(s);
                                   Versus
Shri Dhiresh Lodh
                                                        .........Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)        :      Mr. D.C. Roy, Advocate,
                                Mr. D. Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)        :      None.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH Order 22/01/2024

Title Appeal No.65/2016 preferred by the petitioner herein

being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2016 passed in T.S.

No.35/2015 along with T.S. (CC) No.04/2015 by the learned Civil Judge

(Senior Division), West Tripura, Agartala [Annexure-A] has been dismissed

for default due to non-prosecution by order dated 20.09.2021.

Petitioner preferred a restoration application along with an

application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

on 11.11.2022 which has been rejected on grounds of unexplained delay of

256 days in approaching the Court. The learned Appellate Court of District

Judge, West Tripura, Agartala has taken into account the period of extension

of limitation in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in suo motu Writ

Petition No.03/2020 within the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, but

according to him, the period from 01.03.2022 till 10.11.2022 has not been

properly explained.

Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that

petitioner has taken the plea of lapses on the part of his advocate, who was

reportedly undergoing treatment of de-addiction. Petitioner, being an

ordinary layman, could not pursue the restoration application within time on

account of non-cooperation from the erstwhile counsel. The refusal to

condone the delay would prove fatal to the case of the petitioner as the

appeal has been preferred on good grounds against the judgment and decree

rendered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein. As such, delay may be

condoned and the appeal may be restored.

Issue notice on the respondent under ordinary process and

Speed Post for which requisites be filed within one week.

Notice is made returnable on 23.02.2024.

(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ

Pijush/ MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA Date: 2024.01.29 11:37:34 +05'30'