Tripura High Court
Dipak Chandra Kar vs The Union Of India on 4 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No.01 of 2025
In Rev.Pet.No.16 of 2025
Dipak Chandra Kar, son of Late Makhan Lal Kar, resident of
Village-Shibnagar, Collge Road, P.O.Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura, PIN-799004
....Applicant(s).
Versus
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry
of Finance, Government of India, having its office at South Block,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
having its office at South Block, New Delhi.
3. The Joint Commissioner, IRS, Central Goods & Services
Tax& Central Excise, having his office at 1st Floor, GST Bhawan,
Netaji Chowmuhani, Mantribari Road, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-
799003.
....Respondent(s).
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Pannalal Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.Majumder, Dy.S.G.I.
Mr. Paramartha Datta, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 29.07.2025
Date of delivery of
Judgment : 04.08.2025.
Whether fit for reporting : Yes No
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
O_R_D_E_R
Heard Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Somik Deb for the petitioner.
Also heard Ld. Dy.S.G.I Mr. B. Majumder for respondent Nos.1 & 2
as well as Mr. Paramartha Datta for the respondent No.3.
[2] The petitioner has filed a petition for review of the
order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court in WP(C) No.93 of 2024 wherein the petitioner prayed for
withdrawing from the Writ Petition to invoke appellate remedy and
accordingly the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on that
day. The petitioner intends to get review of said order.
[3] Along with the review petition, the instant petition
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed condoning the
delay of 362 days in presenting said petition for review.
[4] Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Deb submits that after the said
order was passed on 07.02.2024, on 04.05.2024 the review
petitioner consulted with his engaged Advocate at Guahati who
advised him to file a petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India but as he was not satisfied with said legal advice, he went to
New Delhi and consulted with one Advocate there who advised
him to submit a Writ Petition before the High Court. He
accordingly contacted with Ms. Adwitiya Chakraborty and as per
advice of Ms. Charaborty, Ld. Counsel, he contacted with Ld. Sr.
Counsel Mr. Somik Deb who initially suggested him for presenting
a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
however, later on he after meticulous study of the record, finally
advised the petitioner to submit the Review Petition before this
Court and on collection of some certified copies of the orders/
judgments, the review petition was filed on 18.03.2025 with a
delay of 362 days.
[5] Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Somik Deb submits that there was
no negligence on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his cause
and actually delay was occasioned in obtaining legal advices from
different Ld. Advocates as different nature of advices were given
by different Advocates. Therefore, some leniency may be shown to
the petitioner and for ends of justice the petition may be allowed.
[6] Ld. Counsel of the respondents opposes the prayer
stating that there is apparent negligence in the conduct of the
petitioner disentitling him to get such discretionary relief.
[7] At the outset, we hasten to express that we are not
satisfied with the grounds of delay as canvassed by the petitioner.
Reason of forming such opinion, is that the order was passed on
07.02.2024 and therefore the petition for review ought to have
been filed within 30 days from the date of filing of the
order/judgment, but the petitioner is found to be sitting idle
without taking any step during said period of 30 days, and firstly
met his Advocate at Guwahati only on 04.05.2024 i.e. almost after
03 months thereafter, and there is no explanation about such
delay. Further, according to the petitioner, he was not satisfied
with the legal advice received at Guwahati, and so he went to New
Delhi 05.07.2024 i.e. after 02 months therefrom. There is also no
explanation as to why he was sitting idle again for further 02
months. Ultimately returning from Delhi, he met with Ld. Sr.
Counsel Mr. Deb and obtained his final opinion on 02.10.2024 to
submit the review petition and after more than 5 months
therefrom, he submitted the petition for review on 18.03.2025.
So, sluggishness in every step is demonstrated by the petitioner
despite having aware of the fact that long ago the time limit for
filing the review petition had lapsed. His such lackadaisical
attitude in pursuing his own cause disqualify him from getting the
relief as claimed.
[8] Law is fairly settled that Law of Limitation is based on
public policy and there should be a conclusion of the litigation by
forfeiting the right to remedy. Generally provision of Section 5 is
construed liberally but apart from liberal approach, justice
oriented approach is also required to be kept in mind that right of
the opposite party is also not lost sight of. The exercise of power
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is discretionary and it may
not be exercised if the delay is attributed to the elements of
negligence, carelessness and lack of due diligence on the part of
the petitioner.
[9] In Thirunagalingam Versus Lingeswaran and
Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093], it is observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that while considering the plea for
condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the Court is to
first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the
party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merit of
the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reason given by
the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced
and stands on equal footing, the Court may consider the merit of
the main matter for the purpose of condoning delay. The delay
should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity, and the
pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing
prejudice to the opposite party (emphasis laid).
[10] In view of above discussions, we are not inclined to
condone the delay as prayed for and accordingly the petition is
rejected.
The IA stands disposed of.
(S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA,J) (M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,CJ)
Saikat Sarma
RUDRADEEP Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP
BANERJEE
BANERJEE Date: 2025.08.04 17:26:05 +05'30'
