Tripura High Court
Revision vs Smt. Supriya Acharjee on 10 September, 2025
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No. 01 of 2025
in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.51 of 2025
Sri Bapi Acherjee,
S/o Sri Satya Ranjan Acharjee,
Resident of Meghlipara,
PO- Meghlipara, P.S: Ranir Bazar,
District-West Tripura.
......Revision-Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Smt. Supriya Acharjee,
W/o Sri Bapi Acharjee,
D/o Sri Dhananjoy Acharjee,
of Village-North Srirampur, Near Chottakhala Bazar,
P.O. Siddhi Nagar, P.S- P. R. Bari,
District: South Tripura, Pin-799157.
.... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Nepal Majumder, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Adv.
Date of Hearing & : 10th September,2025.
Delivery of Order
fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
10.09.2025
Heard learned counsel Mr. Nepal Majumder,
appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Ratan
Datta, appearing for the respondent.
2. The revision petition is filed challenging the order
dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family court,
Belonia, South Tripura in case No. Maintenance No.21/2021
whereby learned Judge awarded maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per
month to the petitioner with arrear maintenance of
Rs.2,16,000/- at the same rate, computing from the month of
March, 2020 till August,2024 i.e. the period during which the
proceeding was pending. Learned Judge, Family court has also
given liberty to the present petitioner to pay the said arrear
maintenance in total 108 numbers of equal installments.
3. The revision petition is filed with a delay of 237 days.
Learned counsel Mr. Majumder, submits that the petitioner is a
day labour by profession and is not much conversant with the
legal procedure and therefore, after the order was passed on
30.08.2024 he did not make any contact with his counsel and
therefore, did not get any information about the said final order.
He, however, applied for the certified copy of the said final order
on 21.11.2024 and received the same on 13.12.2024 and
therefore the present revision petition has been filed with above
said period of delay of 237 days.
4. The main ground for such delay according to the
petitioner, is that he is required to look after his old and ailing
parents and therefore, he could not maintain proper contact
with his learned counsel and this way the delay has been
occasioned.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Datta, on the other hand
seriously opposes the prayer stating that the explanation as
offered by the petitioner is not sufficient to condone the delay.
6. This court has taken into consideration the
submission of both sides and the material placed in the record.
From the impugned judgment/order it appears that the present
petitioner was represented by a learned advocate before the
Judge, Family court, Belonia and therefore, his claim that he is
ignorant about the legal procedure is not acceptable.
7. His second ground in support of his petition for
condonation is that he was required to look after his old parents
and therefore, the petition could not be filed earlier. Such
ground also does not generate any satisfaction in the mind of
the court to hold that he was throughout vigilant and diligent in
pursuing his cause.
8. The above said grounds rather give the impression
that he was lacking in his diligence and was negligent in
preferring the revision petition in time. Relying on a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme court in Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran
& Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093 the Division
Bench of this Court in IA No. 01/2025 in Rev. Pet. No.
16/2025 (Dipak Chandra Kar Vs. The Union of India & Ors.)
decided on 04.08.2025 held that though liberal approach has to
be taken in the matter of dealing with a petition under Section 5
of Limitation Act but such petition cannot be allowed just on the
basis of generosity.
9. In a recent decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Union of India & another v. Jahangir Byramji
Jeejeebhoy (D) through his L.R.s, 2024 SCC Online SC
489, it has been held that when it is decided that a party has
lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because
of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-
deliberate delay and in such circumstances, he cannot be heard
to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as
against the technical considerations. While considering the
petition for condonation of delay, the court must not start with
the merits of the main case. The relevant paragraph nos.26 and
27 of said decision are extracted below:
"26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the
court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay
should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the
appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of
limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed
a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to
have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a
long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such
circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the
substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical
considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay,
the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court
owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered
by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause
assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally
balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for
the purpose of condoning the delay.
27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not
merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on
the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We
should not keep the „Sword of Damocles‟ hanging over the head of the
respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims
and fancies of the appellants."
10. Again in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar
Choudhury,[Special Leave Petition(C) Diary No.48636 of
2024 decided on 29.11.2024], above said principle has been
reiterated by the Apex Court. It is also further observed that the
discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously
based on facts and circumstance of each case and that, the
expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if
negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides is attributed to the
party.
In view of above discussion, the court is not inclined
to condone the delay and accordingly the petition is rejected.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA
Date: 2025.09.12 16:39:32 +05'30'
Satabdi
