The Tripura High Court has restored a property title appeal after holding that litigants should not be denied an opportunity to contest a case on merits merely because their lawyer withdrew from the proceedings without effectively communicating with them. The Court found that the District Judge had adopted an incorrect legal approach while refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by Parimal Saha, who sought a declaration of title over a property in Udaipur, Gomati district, along with recovery of possession. He claimed that the property originally belonged to his mother and that the defendants' predecessor had been allowed to occupy it only as a permissive occupant.
The defendants disputed these claims, asserting that the land was government property and denying the plaintiff's ownership. Although they initially filed a written statement, their counsel later withdrew from the case. The trial court eventually proceeded ex parte and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff on August 22, 2023.
The defendants later challenged the decree but filed their appeal with a delay of more than 23 months. They argued that they were unaware of the ex parte proceedings because their lawyer had withdrawn without informing them and that they learnt about the decree only during execution proceedings.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao found that the District Judge overlooked important facts while rejecting the delay condonation application.
The High Court observed that the defendants had actively pursued remedies by filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree, a circumstance that should have been considered while deciding whether sufficient cause existed for the delay.
The Court also held that the District Judge wrongly insisted that the legal representatives of a deceased defendant were required to file a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before seeking substitution.
Explaining the legal position, the Court noted that an application for substitution filed within the statutory period available after abatement does not necessarily require a separate delay condonation application.
The bench observed,
"There was thus no necessity for the legal representatives of deceased second defendant to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for any purpose at all."
The Court further emphasised that procedural rules should not prevent disputes from being decided on their merits unless there is clear evidence of negligence or deliberate delay.
Referring to the facts of the case, the bench said,
"The defendants were victims of circumstances and it cannot be said that they had adopted dilatory tactics, that they are wanting of bona fides or guilty of deliberate inaction or negligence."
The Court also disagreed with the District Judge's observation that litigants should have checked the status of their case online, noting that senior citizens who are not technologically familiar cannot be penalised for failing to monitor court proceedings through digital platforms.
Decision
Allowing both the Civil Revision Petition and the Regular Second Appeal, the Tripura High Court set aside the District Judge's orders refusing to condone the delay, dismissing the appeal, and rejecting the substitution application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased defendant.
The Court restored Title Appeal No. 19 of 2025 to the file of the District Judge, directed that it be decided on merits after hearing both sides within four months, and ordered that the execution proceedings arising from the original suit shall remain stayed until the appeal is decided.
Case Details
Case Title: Sukesh Chandra Saha & Others v. Parimal Saha
Case Number: RSA No. 03 of 2026 along with CRP No. 14 of 2026
Judge: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Decision Date: 30 June 2026
