1) Heard Mr. Pranabashis Majumder, counsel appearing for the appellant/applicant.

2) This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 383 days in filing this RSA challenging the judgment and decree dt.25.02.2025 of the Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No.01 of 2022.

3) In the said application, the applicant stated that after the judgment was pronounced on 25.02.2025 by the said Court, application for issuance of certified copy was made on 28.02.2025 and it was received on 11.03.2025. It is also admitted that Second Appeal should be filed in 90 days.

4) It is next contended that the applicant’s lawyer first applied for obtaining certified copy of all exhibited documents filed in the case, that these were secured on 28.07.2025. It is stated that in August, 2025, the grandson of the appellant visited the house of the Advocate at Agartala to take steps for filing the Appeal.

5) According to the applicant due to unavoidable circumstances, the relevant exhibited documents were not handed over to the counsel engaged to file the Appeal, that the applicant suffered serious illness and she could not visit before the High Court at Agartala to consult with the lawyer.

6) It is contended that the applicant could not come to Agartala due to her illness and that the treatment for her illness is continuing.

7) It is further contended that the grandson of the applicant could not meet with the counsel engaged in Agartala to know about the filing of the Appeal. It is stated that the grandson of the applicant had no idea about the process and procedure of law and that there was a period of limitation prescribed to prefer the Appeal before the Court.

8) It is stated that the grandson of the applicant in the mid November, 2025 came to Agartala to meet the counsel and that the Appeal was then drafted and filed on 30.05.2026.

9) It is contended that the applicant had Polyarthritis, Back pain and Slip Disk and that she was bedridden on the advice of the Doctor and she is unable to move independently and also not able to travel long distance. Certain prescriptions issued by the doctors have also been filed.

10) It cannot be denied that the time for filing a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against a judgment in the First Appeal is only 90 days.

11) No doubt, if there is a delay in filing the Appeal and the party does not appear to be negligent, the Court, while exercising power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can condone the same.

12) In the instant case, no doubt the appellant is aged about 71 years, but she was represented both in the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by a counsel and it is stated that the applicant had already decided to file the Appeal in this Court against the judgment in the First Appeal as soon as it was decided.

13) Admittedly, she was being assisted by her grandson, who was liaising with the lawyer at Agartala since August, 2025 and prior thereto through another of her representatives. It may be that the applicant because of her ill health was not personally able to meet the counsel, but that does not mean that the applicant could not have filed the Appeal in the High Court through her counsel with the help of her grandson within a reasonable time. 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.

14) 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. She has been negligent in pursuing the matter. Valuable rights have accrued to the respondents due to passage of time which cannot be allowed to be defeated at this point of time.

15) In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the delay in filing the Appeal cannot be condoned for the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, the I.A. is dismissed.

16) Consequently, the RSA is dismissed.

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