Tripura High Court
Sri Nepal Ch. Nama vs Smt. Sandhya Sarkar @ Sandhya Nama ... on 22 August, 2025
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.03 of 2025
Sri Nepal Ch. Nama, S/o Sri Birchandra Nama, resident of Village - Nama
Para, Hospital Road, P.O. & P.S. - Manubazar, Sabroom, District - South
Tripura.
.........Petitioner(s);
Versus
Smt. Sandhya Sarkar @ Sandhya Nama (Sarkar) @ Sandhya Rani Sarkar, D/o
Birchandra Nama, resident of Village - Hrishyamukh, PO & PS - Belonia,
District - South Tripura.
......... Respondent(s);
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhruba Jyoti Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilip Kumar Das Chawdhury, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
O-R-D-E-R
22/08/2025
This Revision petition is filed challenging the judgment dt.
19.11.2024 of the learned District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, in Civil
Misc. (Condo) No.07 of 2024 arising out of Title Appeal No.03 of 2024.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was the defendant in T.S. (P)
No.05 of 2020 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), South Tripura,
Belonia. It was a suit filed for partition of the plaint schedule property by the
respondent herein. After contest, the suit was decreed on 22.12.2023, and the
decree in the suit was drafted on 05.01.2024.
3. Title Appeal No.03 of 2024 was filed on 17.05.2024 by the
petitioner.
4. Along with the appeal, he had filed the Civil Misc. (Condo)
No.07 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the
delay of 104 days in filing the appeal.
5. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it was contended
that application for certified copy was made on 06.02.2024 and it was
furnished on 17.02.2024. But thereafter the petitioner could not contact his
advocate over mobile number as he was not available, and on 25.02.2024 he
contacted the advocate who had asked him to meet him in his chamber. But
the petitioner could not manage leave from his department. Thereafter, there
was Lok Sabha Election, which was announced on 16.03.2024, in which the
petitioner was engaged on election duty. After the completion of the election
process, the petitioner got leave from the department after much trouble, and
then he filed the appeal on 17.05.2024. Petitioner contends that this caused
the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal.
6. Though counter-affidavit was not filed to the said application,
the application was opposed by the respondents.
7. The learned District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, dismissed the
Civil Misc. (Condo) No.07/2024 on the ground that the petitioner was not
diligent in applying for a certified copy, as he had applied for the same after
more than a month. The learned District Judge also held that the petitioner did
not take steps to file the appeal immediately after obtaining the certified copy
and slept over the matter till 17.05.2024. The District Judge rejected the plea
of the petitioner that he could not get leave from his department on the ground
that no document was filed to show that the petitioner was a Government
servant or he was engaged in the Lok Sabha election.
8. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the affidavit filed
along with the delay condonation application, the petitioner had stated that he
was a Government servant and this fact was not disputed by the respondents
by filing a counter-affidavit in the delay condonation application. By way of
abundant caution, he has also filed before this Court evidence that he is
employed as a constable in the Police Department of the Government of
Tripura.
9. Since the respondents had not denied about petitioner's
employment in Government service, and since undoubtedly a Police
Constable would be involved on election duty and it would be difficult for
him to get leave when there is election in the State, the District Judge should
have accepted the reason assigned for condonation of delay and allowed the
application for condonation of delay. He could have at least called upon the
petitioner to produce evidence that he is a Government servant or that he was
engaged in the election process, if he doubted the plea of the petitioner in that
regard.
10. The counsel for the respondent also stated that the suit being a
partition suit, and the parties being related to one another, he has no objection
if this Revision petition is allowed setting aside the order of the learned
District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, dt. 19.11.2024 in Civil Misc. (Condo)
No.07/2024.
11. In my opinion, sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant
for condoning the delay of 104 days in filing Title Appeal No.03 of 2024
before the District Judge, and that the District Judge was not right in
dismissing the application by the impugned order.
12. Therefore, this Revision petition is allowed, and the Civil
Misc.(Condo) No.07 of 2024 is allowed, as well as the Title Appeal No.03 of
2024; the said Title Appeal is restored to the file of the Court since it was
dismissed on the ground of dismissal of Civil Misc.(Condo) No.07 of 2024 on
19.11.2024 and the order dismissing Title Appeal No.03 of 2024 is dependent
on the order in Civil Misc.(Condo) No.07 of 2024.
13. Therefore, the instant Revision petition is allowed subject to the
petitioner paying cost of Rs.500/- to the respondent within four weeks. The
appeal is restored to the file of the Court subject to payment of cost.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Munna
MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2025.08.25 15:47:24 +05'30'
