Smt. Mayna Bala Debnath and Ors vs Smt. Pranati Debnath and Ors

Page 1 of 4 2026:THC:719




HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA


I.A. No. 01/2026 in/and RSA No.06/2026

1. Smt. Mayna Bala Debnath, W/O. Sri Sudhir Ranjan Debnath, Vill. and P.O.-
Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.-North Tripura.

2. Sri Sudhir Ranjan Debnath, S/O. Lt. Anaga Mohan Debnath, resident of Vill.
and P.O.-Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.-North Tripura.

3. Sri Ratan Debnath, S/O. Late Anaga Mohan Debnath, resident of Vill. and
P.O.-Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.- North Tripura.

4. Sri Gopal Chandra Debnath, S/O. Lt. Girendra Chandra Debnath, resident of
Vill. and P.O.-Algapur, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.- North Tripura.
......Defendant-Appellants.
Versus
1. Smt. Pranati Debnath, W/O. Lt. Radha Kanta Debnath, resident of Vill. and
P.O.-Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.-North Tripura.

2. Sri Ashim Kumar Debnath, S/O. Late Radha Kanta Debnath, resident of Vill.
and P.O.-Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.- North Tripura.

3. Smt. Pampa Debnath, D/O. Late Radha Kanta Debnath, resident of Vill. and
P.O.-Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.- North Tripura.

4. Smt. Sabita Debnath, D/O. Late Radha Kanta Debnath, W/O. Sri Laxman
Debnath, resident of Nayapara, P.S. Dharmanagar, District: North Tripura.
.....Plaintiff-Respondents.

5. Sri Ranjit Debnath, S/O. Ram Chandra Debnath, resident of Vill. and P.O.-
Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmnagar, Dist- North Tripura.

6. Sri Ramendra Debnath, S/O. Lt. Ram Ch. Debnath, resident of Vill. and P.O.-
Sakaibari, P.S. Dharmanagar, Dist.- North Tripura.

7. Smt. Jyotsna Debnath, W/O. Sri Harendra Ch. Debnath, D/O. Lt. Ram Ch.
Debnath, resident of Vill.-Kaulikura, P.O.-Sonamukhi, P.S.-Kailasashar, Dist.-
Unakoti.

8. Smt. Swapna Debnath, W/O. Sri Ranadhir Lal Nath, D/O. Lt. Ram Chandra
Debnath, resident of Vill. & P.O.- Bazarghat, P.S.- Ratanbari, Dist.- Karimganj,
Assam.

9. Sri Ranjan Debnath, S/O. Sri Rama Kanta Debnath, resident of Vill. and
P.O.-Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.-North Tripura.

10. Sri Sukanta Debnath, S/O. Sri Rama Kanta Debnath, resident of Vill. and
P.O.-Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.- North Tripura.

11. Sri Rinku Debnath, S/O. Sri. Rama Kanta Debnath, resident of Vill. and
P.O.-Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.-North Tripura.

12. Sri Prasanta Debnath, S/O. Sri Rama Kanta Debnath, resident of Vill. and
P.O.-Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.-North Tripura.

Page 2 of 4 2026:THC:719




13. Smt. Rita Debnath, D/O. Sri Rama Kanta Debnath, resident of Vill. and
P.O.-Sakaibari, P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.-North Tripura.

14. Smt. Rina Debnath, D/O. Sri Rama Kanta Debnath, W/O. Sri Arun Ch.
Nath, resident of Vill. and P.O.-Tulgoan, P.S.-Kadamtala, Dist.-North Tripura.

15. Smt. Anjali Nath, W/O. Sri Ram Krishna Debnath, resident of Vill. and
P.O.- Gouripur, P.S.-Chauraibari, Dist.-North Tripura.

Smt. Saramani Nath, D/O. Lt. Narayan Ch. Debnath having died her surviving
legal heir.

16. Smt. Sailendri Nath, W/O. Sri Ranjit Debnath, D/O. Sukhamoy Nath,
resident of Vill. and P.O.-Gouripur, P.S.-Churaibari, Dist.-North Tripura.
........Pro-forma Respondents

For Applicant/Appellant(s) : Mr. Kundan Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : None.

Date of hearing : 08.05.2026.
Date of pronouncement : 26.05.2026.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.


HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGMENT & ORDER



This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condoning the delay of 885 days in filing the connected RSA against
the judgment and decree dt. 05.07.2023 of the Addl. District Judge, North
Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No. 23 of 2018.
2. The respondents had instituted Title Suit No. 07 of 2016 before
the Civil Judge, Sr. Div., North Tripura, Dharmanagar for declaration of right,
title and interest of the suit schedule property and also for recovery of
possession of the said land.
3. By the judgment dt. 20.06.2018 and decree dated 03.07.2018, the
said suit was decreed in favour of the respondents.
4. The applicants preferred Title Appeal No. 23 of 2018 before the
Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar.

Page 3 of 4 2026:THC:719




5. The said appeal was also dismissed on 05.07.2023.
6. The applicants then filed Civil Misc. (Review) No. 02 of 2023
before the Addl. District Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura seeking review
of his judgment in Title Appeal No. 23 of 2018.
7. The said Review Petition was dismissed on 18.12.2025 holding
that the grounds agitated in the review petition were matters for appeal and not
for review.
8. Thereafter, the connected RSA has been filed on 07.03.2026 by
the applicants with this application seeking condonation of 885 days in filing
the Review Petition.
9. It is the contention of the counsel for the applicants that the time
taken by them in pursuing the remedy by way of review has to be excluded
from consideration while condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Reliance is
placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in DSR Steel (Private) Ltd. vs.
1
State of Rajasthan .
10. In the said judgment it was held that the time taken by a party in
diligently pursing the remedy by way of review may in appropriate cases be
excluded from consideration while condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
11. The said judgment does not state that the delay, however
inordinate like in the instant case of 885 days in filing the RSA, has to be
condoned in every case, where the applicant, who has filed an appeal, has
availed the remedy of review, which has ended in dismissal and that the period
spent in pursuing the review petition is bound to be excluded in every such
case.

1
(2012) 6 SCC 782

Page 4 of 4 2026:THC:719




12. I may point out that the judgment in Title Appeal No. 23 of 2018
was pronounced on 05.07.2023, but the Review Petition was filed on
24.08.2023, beyond 30 days from the date of the judgment in Title Appeal No.
23 of 2018. Also though the Review Petition was dismissed on 18.12.2025,
the RSA came to be filed on 07.03.2026, two months and 19 days later. It is
contended by applicants that the delay in filing the RSA after the dismissal of
the Review Petition occurred because of the counsel he had engaged.
13. I am also not satisfied with the explanation offered by the
applicant for the delay in filing the RSA after dismissal of the Review
Petition.
14. The respondent plaintiffs who have succeeded before the trial
court and in the first appellate court and also in the Review Petition cannot be
permitted to be vexed again by entertaining the RSA filed after such
inordinate delay.
15. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
16. Consequently, the connected RSA is also dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.



(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)



PULAK BANIK
Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2026.05.26 15:26:53 +05'30'