Senior Citizens Cannot Be Penalised For Not Tracking Cases Online: Tripura High Court

The Tripura High Court has held that while litigants are expected to track their cases on court websites, however persons who are not technologically savvy such as senior citizens cannot be penalised for not doing so. The court was hearing an appeal wherein the respondent-plaintiff had filed suit to declare his right, title and interest in the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of the same. The appellants-defendants who were senior citizens, denied that the property belonged to the plaintiff's mother. They contended that the land was Government land, and their predecessor by name Manoranjan Saha along with another had occupied it. According to them, in a Khatian, the names of their predecessor Manoranjan Saha and one Gopi Ranjan Chakraborty were recorded as unlawful occupiers, and that the said Khatian did not mention the name of the mother of the plaintiff Smt. Soudamini Saha.However they argued that their advocate withdrew himself from the suit by filing a petition before the Trial Court on 19.12.2022 which was allowed on 01.02.2023. An order was passed on 20.03.2023 against the appellants ex parte in the suit and after considering the evidence the suit was decreed in the plaintiff's favour. The appellants filed an appeal which was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court had held orders of courts are available on the official website, and the appellants plea that they were unaware for a long period is untenable in the present digital era where communication is easily accessible because litigants are expected to exercise due diligence. Against this the appellants moved a second appeal before the high court. Justice MS Ramachandra Rao in his order observed that there was no dispute that both the appellants in Title Appeal, were during the pendency of the suit senior citizens and one of them is alleged to be of unsound mind. It noted that their counsel had withdrawn from the case in the trial court and it is contended that he did not contact them and inform them about it, and consequently, they were not aware that they were set ex-parte and later ex-parte decree was passed. They filed application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree with delay and that was also dismissed on the ground that first appellant had filed it through his son and it was not accompanied by an application under Order XXXII CPC. "The fact that the second defendant was alive and was also a party in the said application was not noticed while dismissing the said application by the trial Court. The suit/appeal involves substantial stakes as reliefs of declaration of title to immoveable property and recovery of possession have been sought by plaintiff against the defendants.While it is true that there is a website on which litigants are expected to verify stages of their cases, persons who are not technologically savvy like senior citizens in the instant case, cannot be penalised for not doing so. I am therefore of the opinion that 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 said.The court said that it would be travesty of justice to deny them even one opportunity to contest the matter on merits in the facts and circumstances of the case. It further observed that appellants did file a Written Statement by engaging a counsel in the suit. It said that admittedly the counsel engaged by the appellants had filed a petition on 09.12.2022 praying for exemption from conducting the trial on the pretext that he was unable to communicate with the appellants for a long time, and the same was allowed on 01.02.2023.After the ex-parte decree was passed on 22.08.2023, the appellants filed an application contesting the same along with application for condonation of delay which was dismissed. The court held that District Judge, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay had erred gravely in presuming that the legal representatives of deceased – second defendant should file an application under Section 5 Limitation Act to condone delay in filing the substitution application, as there was no such requirement of law.The court restored the title appeal filed by the appellants before the trial court and directed that it be decided on merits after hearing both sides within four months. The appeal was allowed. Case title: Sukesh Chandra Saha & Ors. v/s Parimal SahaRSA No.03 of 2026Click Here To Read/Download Order

Senior Citizens Cannot Be Penalised For Not Tracking Cases Online: Tripura High Court

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Malavika Prasad

Senior Citizens Cannot Be Penalised For Not Tracking Cases Online: Tripura High Court

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers