1 3
Page of
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No.4 of 2024
In LA APP No.2 of 2024
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction-1)
---Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri Mantu Das and Ors.
----Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, DSGI.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.
JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
HON’BLE MR.
Order
30/09/2024
Learned DSGI Mr. B. Majumder is present for the appellant-
applicant.
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel is present for the
respondent-claimants and Mr. K. De, Learned Addl. G.A. is present
for the L.A. Collector.
This present application is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 983(nine hundred and
eighty three) days in preferring this appeal filed against the
judgment and award dated 31.08.2019 delivered by Learned LA
Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No. Misc.
L.A.207 of 2014.
In course of hearing Learned counsel for the appellant-
applicant submitted that the grounds of delay have been clearly
mentioned in para-3 of the application because in preferring the
appeal 715 days was consumed due to Covid pandemic and the said
period of 715 days shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation and
in addition to that due to some procedural formalities some more
time was consumed for which in total 983 days were delayed in
preferring the appeal. So Learned counsel urged for allowing the said
application and further submitted that if the delay is not condoned
then the appellant-applicant shall be highly prejudiced.
2 3
Page of
On the other hand, Learned counsel Mr. S. Bhattacharjee for
the respondents-claimants in support of his objection submitted that
the delay in regard to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court may
be considered. But in respect of other days the grounds laid by the
appellant-applicant were not properly explained for which the same
cannot be considered. Learned counsel further submitted that before
the execution proceeding which is pending for adjudication the
present appellant-applicant on repeated occasions sought time to
meet up the payments but there was not a single whisper on their
part that the present appellant-applicant is going to file an appeal
challenging the said judgment. Now with a view to delay the process
of payment of decreetal amount this appeal is filed with a vague
application for condonation of delay to defer the payment of
compensation.
Learned counsel further drawn the attention of the court the
order dated 05.03.2024 delivered by this High Court in connection
with Case No.IA No.01 of 2023 in LA APP No.9 of 2024. Referring the
same Learned counsel further submitted that in the last part of the
order this High Court has clearly mentioned that the conduct of the
appellant is similar other cases. So Learned counsel finally urged for
dismissal of this application with costs.
This court has heard the arguments of both the parties and
gone through the application filed by the appellant, the objection
filed by the respondent-claimants and also the order delivered by
this High Court in the aforenoted case. After perusal of the
application for condonation of delay it appears that the period
counted for exclusion of delay due to Covid pandemic may be
considered. But the other period as mentioned in this application are
not at all satisfactory. It is the admitted position that the execution
proceeding is pending for disposal and from the order sheet
submitted by Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents it
3 3
Page of
appears before the Learned executing court sought accommodation
to make payment of compensation. But the Learned counsel for the
appellant-applicant did not utter a single word that they were going
to prefer an appeal challenging the said judgment of the Learned
L.A. Judge.
This court has also seen the order of the High Court dated
05.03.2024 in case No. IA No.01 of 2023 in LA APP No.9 of 2024. In
the last part this High Court gave the following observation:
“So it is seen from the record that in all proceedings, the N.F.
Railways has only prayed for time to make the payment to the
claimants and to the surprise of this Court, suddenly, the
appellant-NF Railways are before this Court by way of an
appeal. This Court is not in a position to appreciate the manner
in which the N.F. Railways disbursing their responsibilities
against the claimants. In so far as the condone delay
application is concerned, it is seen from the record that no
cogent reason has been explained in terms of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act. As such, the condone delay application is
dismissed. As a sequel, connected LA. App. No.9 of 2024 and
any other mischievous application(s), if any, also stand
dismissed and thus disposed of.”
So after hearing both the sides and after going through the
relevant papers and also on perusal of the order of this High Court it
appears that the conduct of the present appellant-applicant was not
at all satisfactory and the grounds set forth in this application for
condonation of delay are not at all satisfactory to grant any relief to
the appellant-applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the application for
condonation of delay in preferring the appeal bears no merit and the
same stands dismissed accordingly as the appellant-applicant has
failed to explain the delay in preferring the appeal properly and also
there is no proof of sufficient cause in the application filed by the
appellant-applicant.
With this observation this IA stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by MOUMITA
MOUMITA
DATTA
Date: 2024.10.01 13:47:31
DATTA
+05'30'
Moumita