Tripura High Court
Sri Chanu Miah vs Safik Mia And Others on 3 May, 2024
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
CRP No.23 of 2024
Sri Chanu Miah
...... Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Safik Mia and others
...... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Noatia, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
=O=R=D=E=R=
03/05/2024
Heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Noatia, who has entered appearance on
behalf of all the respondents upon service of notice.
This Court by order dated 22.03.2024 observed as follows:
"Petitioner is the defendant in TS(P) No.38 of 2017 which was disposed of
vide judgment and decree dated 14.06.2018. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment, the defendant preferred an appeal bearing T.A No.17 of 2028
before the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. The said
appeal was dismissed for default on 05.06.2023. The restoration application
with an application for condonation for delay of 99 days with supporting
medical documents has been rejected by the impugned order dated
19.01.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the delay
is properly explained but the learned Court refused to condone the delay."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite due
explanation for the delay of 175 days, the restoration application has been
dismissed on grounds of limitation preventing proper adjudication on merits
of the appeal. It is further submitted that respondents had not filed any
written objection to the delay condonation application. The appellant was ill
and undergoing treatment for a long time. Therefore, there was some delay
in filing the restoration petition. As such, delay may be condoned.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the pleadings placed from record. The
appellant/petitioner has in his application for restoration of title appeal
specifically stated that he being an employee of a private sector had gone to
Bangaluru. During that period, his engaged counsel could not appear before
the learned Court. As a result of which the appeal was dismissed on
05.06.2023 for default. When he returned from Bangaluru on 14.06.2023 he
was faced with serious ailments i.e. fever, jaundice and liver cirrhosis for
which he remained under treatment from 15.06.2023 to 18.10.2023. He was
advised bed rest. Thereafter, he approached the newly appointed advocate,
obtained the certified copy of the order and filed the appeal. He has taken a
plea that in the meantime puja vacation also intervened. As such, though the
delay may apparently be large but effectively it has been properly explained
on account of his medical treatment.
On consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner and the respondents and after going through the explanation urged,
it appears that the petitioner has given sufficient explanation for the delay in
preferring the restoration application. It further appears that due to non-
representation for several dates on behalf of his learned counsel, the appeal
was dismissed. The appellant being employed in a private job had to go
outside and after return he has taken diligent steps but unfortunately fell ill.
In order that the appeal is decided on merit, interest of justice would be
better served if the petition is allowed and delay in preferring the restoration
petition is condoned.
Accordingly, impugned order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the
learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Civil
Misc.(Condonation) 54 of 2023 and Civil Misc.(Restoration) 02 of 2023
(Annexure-6) are set aside. Let the appeal be heard on merits.
As such, the instant petition stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH) CJ
SIDDHARTHA LODH LODH
Date: 2024.05.09 17:24:41 +05'30'
Dipesh
