Tripura High Court’s Verdict on Technological Accessibility for Seniors
In a significant ruling, the Tripura High Court has determined that senior citizens, who may lack proficiency in using technology, should not be penalized for failing to monitor their case statuses through online court platforms. This decision was made in the case of Sukesh Chandra Saha vs. Parimal Saha, underlining the importance of accessibility for all litigants, regardless of their technological expertise.
Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao addressed the issue while overturning the orders of a District Judge. The lower court had previously refused to allow a delay in filing an appeal in a property dispute case, which led to the dismissal of the title appeal by the defendants, who were the appellants before the High Court. The High Court’s decision emphasizes that while litigants are generally expected to keep track of their cases online, senior citizens, such as those involved in this case, should not be penalized for any failure to do so.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a lawsuit filed by Parimal Saha, who sought a declaration of title and recovery of possession over a property located in Udaipur, Tripura. Saha claimed the property was rightfully his as it was previously owned by his mother, Soudamini Saha. He argued that the defendants’ predecessor had only been a permissive possessor. Conversely, the defendants contended that the land was government-owned.
During the proceedings, the defendants found themselves in a challenging position when their legal representation withdrew, leading to an ex parte decision in favor of Saha by the trial court on August 22, 2023. Subsequently, the defendants submitted an appeal with a delay of 23 months and 8 days, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to excuse the delay, which was dismissed by the District Judge citing insufficient reasons and a lack of due diligence expected in the digital age.
High Court’s Intervention
The Tripura High Court disagreed with the lower court’s denial. It highlighted that the defendants had previously filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to overturn the ex parte decree and had actively pursued this application. The High Court criticized the District Judge for not taking this into account and for making a grave error in assuming such an application was necessary.
More Read
Further emphasizing the stakes involved, the High Court noted the substantial nature of the dispute, which concerned the declaration of title and recovery of possession of immovable property. Chief Justice Rao stated, “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 a travesty of justice to deny them even one opportunity to contest the matter on merits in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
As a result, the High Court overturned the District Judge’s orders, allowed the substitution of legal heirs, and reinstated the title appeal, ensuring that justice is served fairly to the defendants.
Legal representation for the appellants was provided by Advocate Abhijit Sengupta, while Advocate Dilip Kumar Das Chawdhury represented the respondent.
