The Tripura High Court has ruled that senior citizens who are not technologically adept cannot be faulted for failing to monitor the progress of their cases through court websites, observing that such litigants should not be disadvantaged merely because of the increasing digitisation of judicial processes.

Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao made the observation while allowing an appeal against orders of a District Judge, who had refused to condone a delay in filing a title appeal arising out of a property dispute and had consequently dismissed the appeal.

“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,” the Court observed.

The dispute stemmed from a civil suit filed by Parimal Saha, who sought a declaration of title and recovery of possession of a property in Udaipur, Tripura. He claimed that the property belonged to his mother, Soudamini Saha, and that the predecessor of the defendants had only been permitted to occupy the land. The defendants, however, contended that the property was government land.

During the trial, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte after their counsel withdrew from the case. On August 22, 2023, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of Saha.

Subsequently, the defendants approached the appellate court with a delay of 23 months and 8 days, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The District Judge rejected the application, observing that the explanation for the delay was vague and that litigants in the digital age were expected to remain vigilant by checking the status of their cases online.

The High Court disagreed with this approach. It noted that the defendants had diligently pursued an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, a significant circumstance that had been overlooked by the District Judge.

The Court held that the District Judge had committed a serious error in failing to consider the defendants' bona fide efforts to challenge the ex parte decree.

Emphasising that the litigation involved valuable rights concerning declaration of title and possession of immovable property, the High Court observed that the defendants had not deliberately delayed the proceedings.

“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 held.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the District Judge's orders, permitted substitution of the legal heirs, condoned the delay and restored the title appeal for adjudication on merits.

Advocate Abhijit Sengupta represented the appellants, while Advocate Dilip Kumar Das Chawdhury appeared for the respondent.