Senior Citizens Cannot Be Penalised for Not Tracking Cases Online

Source: Tripura High Court

Why in News? 

Justice MS Ramachandra Rao of the Tripura High Court, in Sukesh Chandra Saha & Ors. v. Parimal Saha (2026),  held that litigants who are not technologically savvy — such as senior citizens — cannot be penalised for failing to track the status of their case on the court's website, and restored a title appeal that had been dismissed by the trial court on this ground. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit schedule property, along with recovery of possession. 
• The appellants-defendants, who were senior citizens (one of whom was alleged to be of unsound mind), denied that the property belonged to the plaintiff's mother, Smt. Soudamini Saha. 
• According to the appellants, the land was Government land, occupied by their predecessor, Manoranjan Saha, along with one Gopi Ranjan Chakraborty, and a Khatian recorded them as unlawful occupiers without mentioning the plaintiff's mother's name. 
• The appellants' counsel withdrew from the suit by filing a petition before the Trial Court on 19.12.2022, which was allowed on 01.02.2023. 
• An ex-parte order was passed against the appellants on 20.03.2023, and after considering the evidence, the suit was decreed in the plaintiff's favour. 
• The appellants filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree, along with an application for condonation of delay, which was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it was filed through the son of the first appellant without an accompanying application under Order XXXII CPC. 
• The trial court also held that orders were available on the official website, and that the appellants' plea of being unaware for a long period was untenable in the present digital era, since litigants are expected to exercise due diligence. 
• Aggrieved, the appellants filed a second appeal before the Tripura High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On senior citizens and digital access: The Court observed that both appellants were senior citizens during the pendency of the suit, and one of them was alleged to be of unsound mind. It held that while litigants are generally expected to verify the stages of their cases on court websites, persons who are not technologically savvy, such as senior citizens, cannot be penalised for failing to do so. 
• On the conduct of the appellants: The Court found that the appellants were victims of circumstances rather than parties guilty of dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, or deliberate inaction or negligence, noting that their counsel had withdrawn from the case without informing them, leaving them unaware that they had been set ex-parte. 
• On the trial court's error concerning the second defendant: The Court noted that the fact that the second defendant was alive and was himself a party to the application was overlooked when the trial court dismissed the application for want of an Order XXXII CPC application. 
• On the requirement to condone delay for legal representatives: The Court held that the District Judge had erred gravely in presuming that the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant were required to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay in filing the substitution application, as no such requirement existed in law. 
• On the stakes involved and denial of opportunity to contest: The Court observed that the suit involved substantial stakes, being a claim for declaration of title to immovable property and recovery of possession, and that it would be a travesty of justice to deny the appellants even one opportunity to contest the matter on merits. 
• On relief granted: The Court restored the title appeal filed by the appellants before the trial court and directed that it be decided on merits after hearing both sides within four months. The appeal was allowed. 

What is Order IX Rule 13 CPC? 

Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Setting Aside Decree Ex Parte Against Defendant: 

• A defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed may apply to the court which passed the decree to set it aside.  
• The defendant must satisfy the court on either of two grounds: that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing at the hearing.  
• If satisfied, the court shall set aside the decree upon such terms as to costs, payment into court, or otherwise as it thinks fit.  
• Upon setting aside the decree, the court shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.  
• Where the decree cannot be set aside against the applying defendant only, it may be set aside against all or any other defendants also.  
• No court shall set aside an ex parte decree merely on the ground of irregularity in service of summons, if the defendant had notice of the hearing date and sufficient time to appear.  
• Where an appeal against an ex parte decree has been disposed of on any ground other than withdrawal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that decree.  
• The rule confers discretionary power upon the court to balance the interests of justice whilst preventing abuse of process.