Tripura High Court
Shri Arindam Majumder vs Shri Nepal Bhawal & Others on 5 February, 2025
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
I.A. No.01/2024 in Review Pet. No.29/2024
Review Pet. No.29/2024
Shri Arindam Majumder
......... Petitioner/Applicant(s).
VERSUS
Shri Nepal Bhawal & others
......... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. Deepak Biswas, Advocate,
Ms. Rumpa Dey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
05/02/2025
Heard Mr. Deepak Biswas, learned counsel for the review
petitioner/applicant, on the prayer for condonation of delay of 772 days in
preferring the instant review petition which is directed against the judgment
dated 22.06.2021 passed by this Court in a Regular Second Appeal No.36 of
2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant has drawn the
attention of this Court to the sequence of dates and events following the
dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal. It is submitted that the petitioner's
father had preferred a Special Leave Petition which got registered as SLP(C)
No.8511/2022. During the period of May, 2022, he was stuck in a severe flood
situation in Nagaland and could not be in touch with his counsel. Learned
counsel appearing for him before the Supreme Court withdrew the Special
Leave Petition on 13.05.2022. Thereafter, in August, 2022 father of the
petitioner passed away. Later on, the petitioner's counsel without any prior
information or advice filed a Review Petition bearing Diary No.31303 of 2022
instead of filing an application for restoring the SLP(C) No.8511 of 2022 or
filing a fresh SLP. On account of non-clearing of defects and not taking
appropriate steps, the learned Registrar refused registration of Review Petition
in view of provisions of Order VIII Rule 6(3) & (4) of Supreme Court Rules,
2013. Thereafter, the petitioner's counsel filed an appeal under Order XV Rule
5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 by way of Diary No.31780 of 2023. That
appeal has lately also been withdrawn after filing of the present petition on
24.01.2025. It is for these reasons that the instant Review Petition could not be
filed in time though petitioner has good grounds to seek review of the
impugned judgment. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and if it is
not condoned, petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant further submits that
petitioner's father during those days was suffering from serious illness but at
the same time contesting the Execution Proceedings before the learned Civil
Judge, Udaipur, Gomati District. The petitioner being completely unaware of
the fate of these proceedings, has approached this Court for review but after
some delay which has been properly explained. Therefore, the delay may be
condoned.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant and taken
note of the grounds urged for condonation of delay. The sequence of dates and
events which have been narrated by the petitioner/applicant do not justify such
an inordinate delay of 772 days in seeking review of the impugned judgment
passed by this Court in RSA No.36 of 2019. The petitioner's father appears to
have pursued the remedy before the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave
Petition which was dismissed as withdrawn way back vide order dated
13.05.2022 itself. Thereafter, petitioner's father though had expired in August,
2022, petitioner had been pursuing the remedy of review and thereafter, an
appeal before the Apex Court and in the meantime has approached this Court
on 24.07.2024 for review of the impugned judgment rendered on 22.06.2021 in
RSA No.36 of 2019. Petitioner, therefore, does not have any sufficient
explanation for the inordinate delay in seeking review of the impugned
judgment. The delay of about 2(two) years since the death of his father do give
an impression that the petitioner has been taking chances in invoking different
remedies during this period instead of diligently pursuing the remedy available
to him before the appropriate Court. Such a conduct of a party cannot be
condoned. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to
condone the delay.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No.01 of 2024 is dismissed.
The Review Petition No.29 of 2024 also consequently stands
dismissed.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pulak
PULAK BANIK Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2025.02.06 15:40:47 +05'30'
