Pradip Chakraborty And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

1) Heard Mr. Debajit Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-appellants. Also heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. H. Deb, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.3 to 6.

2) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2018 passed in T.A. 17 of 2016 by the Court of learned District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar, affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2016 passed in Title Suit No.61 of 2013 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kailashahar.

3) In preferring the present second appeal, there is a delay of 299 days. In explaining the delay, the appellants have stated in the petition that the appellants were unaware of the fact that the case was disposed of. In the month of September, 2018, the appellants visited the chamber of the conducting Advocate, but they were informed that the conducting Advocate was out of station for the purpose of medical treatment. It has further been stated that the appellants thereafter visited the chamber of the conducting Advocate in the month of December, 2018 and found him present and after consulting with the Advocate, the appellants came to know that the Title Appeal No.17 of 2016 was disposed of by learned District Judge, Unakoti, Kailasahar and the Advocate also suggested them to move to the superior Court for remedy.

4) Further, it is revealed on going through the petition that the appellants thereafter again came to Agartala and consulted the matter with their learned Advocate, when the learned Advocate had informed them that the certified copies of judgment and decree, passed by the learned Appellate Court was necessary. Thereafter, the appellants had returned back to their home town and consulted with each other whether they were to prefer appeal or not, and, ultimately, they came to the conclusion that there was no other alternative but to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Court.

5) It is further stated that all on a sudden, the appellants had received a notice from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambassa and on receipt of the said notice, the appellants came to consult with their Advocate at Agartala in the Month of March, 2019 and after consultation, their Advocate was requested to apply for certified copies from the Court of learned District Judge, Kailashahar, Unokoti Tripura on 12.04.2019 and received the said copy on 18.04.2019. After receipt of the certified copy of the said judgment and decree, passed by First Appellate Court, the appellants came to Agartala and again consulted with the learned Advocate and handed over the brief to the said learned Advocate. Thereafter, the concerned learned Advocate took ten days' time to prepare the appeal and thereafter the instant appeal has been preferred.

6) I have carefully scrutinized the contentions made in the petition for condonation of delay based on which Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that there was no intentional delay or laches in any manner whatsoever on the part of the appellants.

7) After considering the said pleadings and submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in my opinion, there is clear laches emanated from the contentions itself made in the petition for condonation of delay. The appellants have failed to justify what prevented the appellants to take information from the learned counsel, who has conducted the case before the learned District Judge. Even, it is found that after consultation with the learned Advocate at Agartala, the appellants did not take proper steps to obtain the certified copy. Only they woke up when they received the notice from the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Ambassa. This is a sheer negligence on the part of the appellants and there is no satisfactory explanation for the said period. The appellants could not take proper steps for obtaining certified copy as well as for preferring the appeal.

8) That apart, I have carefully perused the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. The brief facts of the case are that the predecessor of plaintiff-respondents No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 had received an allotment order for the land in question. The predecessor of the present respondents i.e. Lt. Sabitri Malakar and her husband Balaram Malakar had received the allotment order from the State of Tripura i.e. respondents No.1 & 2 of the petition for condonation of delay as well as the memorandum of appeal. At certain point of time both the Courts found that there was strained relation between Lt. Sabitri Malakar and Balaram Malakar. The case of the plaintiffs are that taking that advantage, the present appellants in collusion with the State-respondents were able to cancel the allotment order passed in favour of the aforesaid predecessor of the respondents No.3,4,5,& 6.

9) Both the Courts below after considering the evidence and materials on records found that Lt. Sabitri Malakar, one of the predecessor of the respondents No.3, 4, 5 & 6 was not made party and in her absence the cancellation proceeding was taken up by the revenue authorities and ultimately the cancellation order was passed in absence of Lt. Sabitri Malakar and the allotment order was issued in favour of present appellants who are the defendants in the original suit.

10) The plaintiffs had instituted a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the land of Schedule-C. From the evidence it is apparent that a part of the land of Schedule-A is still under the possession of the respondents No.3, 4, 5 & 6 and the present appellants have occupied the land of Schedule-C from which the plaintiff had sought for eviction of the defendants.

11) After considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court had observed that the revenue proceeding taken up by the revenue authorities was hit by principles of natural justice because the said proceeding was concluded in absence of Lt. Sabitri Malakar. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court dismissed the cancellation order passed by the revenue authorities and the allotment order which was issued in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs was decreed to be valid conferring title of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.

12) The present appellants preferred the first appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge in course of hearing had considered all the issues which were dealt with by the learned Trial Court. After hearing the parties, the learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and the learned District Judge had upheld and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and declared right, title and interest in favour of the respondents No.3, 4, 5 & 6 and also ordered for recovery of possession evicting the appellants from the land of Schedule-C.

13) After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, I find that the appellants have failed to propose any substantial question of law.

14) Having regard to the entire facts of the case as narrated above, I find no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. Both the learned Courts below came to a definite finding that the revenue proceeding was proceeded without affording any opportunity to the respondents to appear before that proceeding and the proceeding was concluded in absence of the private respondents. As such, I don't find any ground for interference with the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

15) Having observed thus, I find no ground to condone the delay of 299 days as well as I find no ground to admit the appeal.

16) In the result, the instant petition for condonation of delay stands dismissed and consequently, the connected second appeal also stands dismissed.

17) Pending application(s), if any also stands dismissed.