Tripura High Court
Sri Umesh Chandra Sarkar vs Sri Sipul Majumder And 2 Others on 3 November, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No.1 of 2025 in MAC App.75 of 2025
Sri Umesh Chandra Sarkar
........Applicant(s)
Vs.
Sri Sipul Majumder and 2 others
........ Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Ms. Moon Basu, Advocate
Mr. Arjun Acharjee, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Advocate
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
ORDER
03.11.2025
[1] Heard Mr. Arjun Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
[2] This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 for condoning the delay of 428 days in preferring the Appeal before this Court
against the impugned judgment and award dated 01.02.2024 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No.2), gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in
case No. T.S. (MAC) 46 of 2021.
[3] The reason behind the delay in preferring the appeal has been explained
in the present application mainly in the following paragraphs, which are quoted as
follows:
"..............(3) That, after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment, the
petitioner met with his earlier appointed lawyer and got the information of the fate
of his case. The earlier appointed lawyer told to the petitioner that there was a
defect in the judgment as due to mistake the Insurance Policy could not be
submitted before the Ld. Tribunal. The vehicle was duly insured with the
MAGMAHDI General Insurance company Limited and hence, the appeal before
the Hon'ble High Court, Agartala
(4) That, after that on the 1st week of June, 2024, the petitioner met with the
earlier appointed lawyer and told that he wants to prefer an appeal before this
Hon'ble High Court and the appointed lawyer said to arrange some fund as
statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- to preferred an appeal. After that on 13.06.2024
the petitioner arranged some fund and came to Agartala to meet his lawyer on that
day but he was unable to meet with the engaged counsel due to the busyness of the
counsel. After that on 29.6.2024 the petitioner again came to Agartala to meet with
his engaged counsel and the Ld. Counsel told him that in the 1st week of July,
2024, the appeal would be preferred before this Ld. High Court. On 15.07.2024
when the petitioner came at Agartala to submit the appeal the engaged counsel told
to the petitioner that the appeal is not file before the Hon'ble High Court as
Rs.25,000/- is required as statutory amount. The petitioner has failed to come at
Agatala in the month of July, 2024 due to serious illness and at that time he was
hospitalized due to high fever. On 01.08.2024 the petitioner came at Agartala court
premises but he came to know that the Ld. engaged counsel was out of station and
therefore, he return to his house.
In the month of August, 2024 when the petitioner came at Agartala to
submit the appeal the engaged counsel told to the petitioner that there is a scope to
file a review petition before the Ld. Tribunal and he told the petitioner to come at
udaipur in the month of November, 2024 The petitioner has failed to come at
Udaipur in the month of November, 2024 due to serious illness. The petitioner
came at Agartala court premises in the month of February, 2025 because he has.
arranged Rs. 25,000/ but he has spent total money due to financial problem and
after that the petitioner came on 13.03.2025 but he came to know that the Ld.
engaged counsel was out of station and therefore, he return to his house. The
petitioner has not been commutated with his engaged counsel long time due to his
family problem and the dispute was stated between the brothers regarding the share
of the property and after solving the matter the petitioner meet with his counsel to
file review petition on 12.05.2025 and the petition returned to his home. On
02.06.2025 the petitioner met with his engaged counsel to know regarding the fate
of the review petition but the Ld. Counsel told that there is no scope for review and
therefore, the appeal is drafted and filed on 04.07.2025. .................."
[4] Heard the submissions made at the Bar. Perused the record.
[5] It is observed by this Court that the reason for delay of 428 days in
filing the connected appeal, as explained in the instant application, is not self-
explanatory and the same is not satisfactory to this Court. In the present application
it is reflected that the reason behind delay was caused by the engaged counsel of the
applicant and only the engaged counsel is responsible for that delay. The applicant
suddenly woke up from a slumber and decided to prefer an appeal after 428
inordinate delay. The said action of the applicant shows irresponsibility on the part
of the applicant and the same should not be entertained.
[6] In view of the above, this Court feels that the grounds which the learned
counsel for the applicant has placed, are not sufficient enough to allow the present
application for condoning the inordinate delay of 428 days. Hence the same is
dismissed.
[7] Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands dismissed and the
same is disposed of. Resultantly, the connected appeal i.e. MAC App.75 of 2025
shall also stand dismissed.
Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J.
Sabyasachi. G.
SABYASACHI GHOSH GHOSH
Date: 2025.11.07 16:49:16 +05'30'
