Illness No Excuse If Litigant Represented By Agent: Tripura HC

Personal presence of a litigant is not mandatory to file a second appeal, and physical illness cannot excuse inordinate delay when an authorized representative is actively assisting. Dismissing an application seeking condonation of a 383-day delay, the High Court emphasized that negligence in pursuing remedies accrued valuable rights in favour of the opposing party.

A single-judge bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao was hearing an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone a delay of 383 days in preferring a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against a First Appellate Court judgment.

Court's Observations and Analysis

The High Court observed that while the applicant was an elderly person suffering from medical ailments, she had active assistance from her grandson, who was liaising with lawyers. The Court noted that an appeal could easily have been presented through counsel upon executing a Vakalatnama without requiring her personal appearance.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It cannot be said that the applicant was required to personally be present in the High Court to present the Second Appeal and the same could always have been presented through her counsel on her signing a Vakalatnama and instructing the counsel through her grandson. The respondents are entitled to be under the impression that no Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the First Appellate Court as considerable time has elapsed in that regard from the date the judgment of the First Appellate Court was pronounced. The delay of 383 days, which had occurred in the filing of this RSA, is inordinate and the applicant has not been diligent enough to take steps to file the Appeal within the time permitted by law."

Background

The applicant sought to challenge a judgment and decree dated February 25, 2025, passed by the Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2022. Although certified copies of the judgment and exhibited documents were secured by July 2025, the appeal was filed only on May 30, 2026.

The applicant contended that she suffered from Polyarthritis, back pain, and slip disk, leaving her bedridden and unable to travel. However, the record revealed her grandson was actively communicating with counsel in Agartala since August 2025. Holding that the delay was inordinate and negligent, the High Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed both the limitation application and the Regular Second Appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: I.A. No.01/2026 in/and RSA No.21/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:THC:1083
Case Title: Smt. Mukti Rani Dam v. Smt. Santi Dam (Sangma) and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pranabashis Majumder, Advocate, Mr. Suraj Dhanuk, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): None.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(TRI) 40