Senior citizens cannot be penalised for not tracking case status online: Tripura High Court

The Tripura High Court has held that senior citizens, who are not technologically savvy, cannot be penalised for failing to track the status of their cases on court websites [Sukesh Chandra Saha Vs Parimal Saha].

Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao made the observation while setting aside orders of a District Judge who had refused to condone delay in an appeal filed by defendants in a property dispute (appellants before the High Court) and had dismissed their title appeal.

“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,” the Court said.

The case arose from a suit filed by one Parimal Saha (plaintiff/ respondent before High Court) seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession over a property at Udaipur in Tripura. He claimed that the property belonged to his mother, Soudamini Saha, and that the defendants’ predecessor was only a permissive possessor. The defendants disputed this and claimed that the land was government land.

The defendants were later proceeded against ex parte after their counsel withdrew from the suit. The trial court ruled in favour of Saha on August 22, 2023.

The defendants filed an appeal after a delay of 23 months and 8 days, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The District Judge dismissed the delay condonation application, holding that the reasons given were vague and that litigants were expected to exercise due diligence in this digital era.

The High Court disagreed. It noted that the defendants had filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree and had pursued it diligently, a fact which the District Judge failed to consider.

The High Court said the District Judge had “erred gravely” in presuming that such an application was required.

The Court further observed that the dispute involved substantial stakes since it concerned declaration of title and recovery of possession of immovable property.

“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. 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,” the High Court said.

Hence, it set aside the District Judge’s orders, allowed substitution of the legal heirs and restored the title appeal.

Advocate Abhijit Sengupta appeared for the appellants.

Advocate Dilip Kumar Das Chawdhury appeared for the respondent.

[Read Judgment]