The Tripura High Court held that senior citizens lacking technological proficiency cannot be penalised for failing to track court cases online. Setting aside a dismissal in a property dispute, the Court emphasised that digital access and technological awareness vary significantly among elderly litigants.
In a significant ruling highlighting the challenges faced by elderly litigants in the digital era, the Tripura High Court has held that senior citizens who are not technologically proficient cannot be faulted for failing to monitor the progress of their court cases through online portals.
Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao made the observation while setting aside orders passed by a District Judge, who had refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal in a property dispute and had consequently dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
Emphasising that access to technology varies across sections of society, particularly among elderly citizens, the High Court 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,”
Background of the Property Dispute:
The litigation arose from a civil suit filed by Parimal Saha seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession over a property situated at Udaipur in Tripura.
According to the plaintiff, the property originally belonged to his mother, Soudamini Saha. He contended that the predecessor of the defendants had been permitted to occupy the land only as a permissive possessor and therefore had no legal ownership rights.
The defendants, however, disputed the claim and maintained that the land was government property, thereby challenging the plaintiff’s assertion of ownership.
During the pendency of the suit, the defendants’ advocate withdrew from representing them. Thereafter, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte, and the trial court ultimately decreed the suit in favour of Parimal Saha on August 22, 2023.
The defendants subsequently sought to challenge the ex parte decree by filing a title appeal. However, the appeal was instituted after a delay of 23 months and 8 days. Along with the appeal, they moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
The District Judge rejected the application, observing that the explanation furnished by the defendants was vague and unsatisfactory. The appellate court further held that, in the present digital age, litigants are expected to remain vigilant by regularly checking the status of their cases through the court’s online portal. Consequently, both the application for condonation of delay and the appeal were dismissed.
High Court’s Finding
The defendants challenged the District Judge’s decision before the Tripura High Court. After examining the record, Chief Justice Rao found that the appellate court had overlooked important circumstances explaining the delay.
The High Court noted that the defendants had already filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and had been diligently pursuing that remedy. According to the Court, this demonstrated that the defendants had not abandoned the litigation or acted negligently.
The High Court observed that the District Judge had failed to properly appreciate these facts and had adopted an overly technical approach while deciding the delay condonation application.
The Court remarked that the District Judge had “erred gravely” in failing to consider the relevant circumstances before refusing to condone the delay.
The High Court further emphasised that the dispute involved valuable immovable property and questions relating to title and possession, making it essential that the parties be given an opportunity to contest the matter on its merits.
Rejecting the allegation that the defendants had deliberately delayed the proceedings, the Court observed:
“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,”
The Court concluded that the delay was not the result of intentional inaction but arose from circumstances beyond the defendants’ control.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the District Judge’s orders refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the title appeal. The Court also permitted substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased parties wherever required and restored the title appeal to the file of the appellate court for adjudication on merits.
The judgment underscores that while digitisation has greatly improved judicial accessibility and transparency, courts must remain mindful of litigants who may not possess the technological knowledge or resources to effectively navigate online systems, particularly senior citizens.
Advocate Abhijit Sengupta appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Dilip Kumar Das Chawdhury represented the respondent.
Case Title: Sukesh Chandra Saha Vs Parimal Saha
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE