The Tripura High Court ruled that senior citizens and litigants who are not technologically savvy cannot be penalized or accused of negligence for failing to regularly monitor their case stages on official court websites.

While setting aside a lower court order that dismissed a first appeal due to a delay in substitution and appeal filing, it was observed that the length of a delay is secondary to the sufficiency of its explanation, and denying a party the chance to contest a substantial property dispute on its merits would amount to a travesty of justice.

The Court emphasized that the elderly defendants were genuine victims of circumstance after their advocate withdrew from the trial at a critical juncture without giving them due notice.

The Bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao observed, "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. 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."

Advocate Abhijit Sengupta appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Dilip Kumar Das Chawdhury appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The two connected proceedings before the High Court arose out of a common first appellate order concerning a title dispute. The plaintiff filed the original title suit against two defendants for declaration of right, title, and interest in an immovable property, along with a prayer for recovery of possession. The plaintiff claimed that the property belonged to his late mother, who had permitted the predecessor of the defendants to occupy the land as a permissive possessor, but the defendants continued to occupy it unlawfully as trespassers after the demise of the original parties.

During the Trial Court proceedings, the counsel engaged by the defendants withdrew from the case, citing a breakdown in communication. The trial court subsequently set the defendants ex parte and ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. Upon learning of the ex-parte decree through execution proceedings, the defendants filed a miscellaneous application under the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the decree, which was dismissed as non-maintainable.

Thereafter, they preferred a Title Appeal before the District Judge along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. During the pendency of this delay condonation application, the second defendant passed away, and his legal heirs filed an application for substitution to bring themselves on record.

The District Judge dismissed the substitution application on the ground that it was not accompanied by a separate application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the lower appellate court also dismissed the primary application for condonation of delay, holding that the litigants failed to show "sufficient cause" and were negligent in monitoring their case in the modern digital era. As a result, the main Title Appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, the defendants moved the High Court via a Civil Revision Petition and a Regular Second Appeal.

Contentions of the Parties

The Defendants contended that the orders passed by the lower appellate court were highly erroneous and perverse. It was argued that the defendants were victims of unfortunate circumstances, as their advocate had withdrawn from the trial at a critical juncture without informing them. It was further submitted that the first defendant was an elderly person suffering from intermittent unsoundness of mind, while the second defendant was a senior citizen who fell severely ill before his demise.

The defendants maintained that they had pursued their remedies diligently and that the lower appellate court ought to have adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach rather than relying heavily on technicalities and digital accessibility.

Conversely, the plaintiff-respondent strongly refuted the assertions and supported the findings of the lower appellate court. It was contended that the defendants were grossly negligent, lacked bona fides, and adopted dilatory tactics to frustrate the execution of a validly passed decree.

The plaintiff argued that the lower appellate court was fully justified in dismissing the applications since the litigants failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing their legal remedies.

Observations and Findings

The Court observed that the lower appellate court committed a grave error of law in misinterpreting the provisions of the Limitation Act regarding abatement and substitution. The Court clarified that when a party dies during the pendency of a proceeding, the legal heirs have a statutory window of ninety days to file a substitution application. 

The Court further placed reliance on settled precedents of the Supreme Court, noting that a simple prayer for bringing legal representatives on record inherently carries an implied prayer for setting aside the abatement. It was observed that courts must adopt a justice-oriented approach to ensure a lis is determined on its merits, unless a litigant is guilty of gross negligence or deliberate inaction. The Court found that the elderly defendants were genuine victims of a breakdown in professional communication after their counsel withdrew without notice.

The Court also rejected the lower appellate court's observation that litigants must constantly verify case statuses on the official website, noting that technologically unversed senior citizens cannot be penalized for failing to navigate digital platforms.

"For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the points framed above have to be answered in favour of the defendants/ petitioners/ appellants and the order passed by the learned District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur on 26.11.2025 in Civil Misc. (Condo) 19 of 2025 in Title Appeal 19 of 2025, and the consequential order passed on the same day dismissing Title Appeal No.19 of 2025, cannot be sustained", the Court said.

Holding that the length of the delay is secondary to the sufficiency of the explanation, the High Court concluded that denying the defendants an opportunity to contest a matter involving substantial immovable property rights would amount to a travesty of justice.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned orders, allowed the substitution, condoned the delay, and restored the Title Appeal for fresh consideration on merits.

Cause Title: Sri Sukesh Chandra Saha & Ors. v. Sri Parimal Saha [Neutral Citation:2026:THC:801]

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocate Abhijit Sengupta

Respondent: Advocate Dilip Kumar Das Chawdhury

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: