The Calcutta High Court has taken a compassionate stance in a remarkable legal case. Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury recently allowed an application from an 82-year-old tribal woman. This woman sought permission to file a second appeal despite a massive delay of 2,340 days. That amounts to over eight years beyond the standard limitation period.
A Struggle Spanning Decades
Thupa Bala Sardar, the appellant, has been fighting a legal battle for nearly two decades. Her case involves a land dispute in a remote West Bengal village. This village lies more than 300 kilometers away from Kolkata. She spent approximately eight years in the trial court. After an unfavorable verdict, she pursued the matter for another eight years in the first appellate court.
Grounds for the Extraordinary Delay
The court considered several critical factors presented by her advocates, Samir Kumar Adhikari and Saikat Seal. Thupa Bala Sardar is an illiterate octogenarian. She suffers from multiple age-related ailments. Her lawyers argued that a combination of circumstances caused the delay.
These circumstances included:
- Her advanced age of 82 years and associated memory loss.
- Prolonged illness and medical advice recommending rest.
- Complete illiteracy and a consequent lack of legal awareness.
- Total dependence on family members and lawyers for information.
- Residence in a remote rural area with limited court access.
She claimed she remained unaware that her first appeal had been dismissed back in 2016. According to her submission, she only learned about this dismissal on August 13, 2024. This information came during a chance meeting with a court official, a mohurar, from the Bankura Judges Court.
The Court's Sympathetic Reasoning
Justice Chowdhury's order highlighted the need for a sympathetic approach. The judge noted that considering her age, the lengthy litigation period, her lack of knowledge about the first appeal's outcome, and her health problems, her case deserved leniency.
"Considering the age of the appellant, the loss of power to remember cannot be ruled out," the court observed. It acknowledged that a litigant pursuing a case for so many years might become aged, suffer ailments, or face financial hardship. These factors can legitimately delay the filing of a further appeal.
Conditional Approval and Legal Framework
The court did not grant the condonation unconditionally. It allowed the delay subject to the payment of costs. The woman must pay Rs. 6,000 to the respondents in the case. She must also pay Rs. 2,000 to the High Court Legal Services Committee.
This decision rests on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This section empowers courts to excuse delays in filing appeals if the party demonstrates a "sufficient cause." The law aims to ensure justice is not denied purely due to technical time limits.
Opposition and Final Ruling
The respondents in the case opposed the application. Their counsel, Advocate Neelabha Bera, argued orally that the appellant failed to establish a sufficient cause. He pointed out that the medical certificate did not explicitly mention memory loss or prescribe complete bed rest. He also contended that since someone else was managing the litigation, she could not plausibly claim ignorance of the court's decision.
However, the court ultimately sided with the elderly appellant. It emphasized the discretionary power conferred upon courts to consider all relevant factors. The bench ruled that in situations where a litigant, after a long legal battle, suffers from old age and memory issues, applications for condoning delay should be viewed sympathetically.
The Calcutta High Court's ruling sets a significant precedent. It underscores the judiciary's role in balancing strict procedural rules with substantive justice, especially for vulnerable and aged litigants from marginalized communities.
