The Tripura HC restored a delayed property appeal, ruling that senior citizens who are not technologically savvy cannot be penalised for failing to track court cases online, ensuring they receive a fair opportunity to contest disputes on merits and uphold the principles of justice.
The Tripura High Court has ruled that senior citizens who are not technologically savvy cannot be penalised for failing to monitor their court cases through online platforms. The court restored a property dispute appeal that had been dismissed due to a 23-month delay, observing that justice should not be denied merely because elderly litigants were unable to track proceedings digitally.
The ruling came from a single bench headed by Chief Justice MS Ramchandra Rao, who held that while courts have introduced online systems for litigants to monitor the progress of their cases, expecting elderly individuals unfamiliar with technology to rely solely on such platforms would be unfair.
The High Court observed that although litigants are generally expected to remain informed about the status of their cases, senior citizens lacking digital literacy should not face adverse consequences for failing to access online court records. The court stressed that such individuals deserve a fair opportunity to present their case on its merits instead of being deprived of justice due to procedural technicalities.
Setting aside the orders passed by the District Judge, Gomati, the High Court restored Title Appeal No. 19 of 2025, holding that the lower court had erred in rejecting an application seeking condonation of a 23-month delay and subsequently dismissing the appeal.
The legal dispute originated from a title suit filed in 2021 concerning the ownership and possession of an immovable property located in Udaipur, Tripura. During the trial, the defendants had submitted their written statement. However, after their advocate withdrew from the case without informing them, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte. Consequently, the trial court passed an ex parte decree in August 2023.
The defendants later approached the appellate court, stating that they had no knowledge of their lawyer’s withdrawal and remained unaware that the proceedings had continued in their absence. According to their submissions, they learned about the ex parte judgment only after execution proceedings were initiated.
One of the appellants was a 77-year-old senior citizen who was also stated to be suffering from intermittent episodes of unsoundness of mind. The second appellant was likewise an elderly individual. They argued that these circumstances prevented them from effectively monitoring the legal proceedings.
The District Judge, however, rejected their plea, observing that litigants have a duty to remain vigilant, appoint another lawyer if necessary, and regularly verify the status of their cases through the court’s official website.
The High Court disagreed with this reasoning, holding that the lower court failed to appreciate the practical difficulties faced by elderly litigants who were unfamiliar with digital systems. The court noted that both appellants had been left completely unaware after their counsel withdrew from the proceedings without giving them any notice, resulting in the ex parte order.
Chief Justice MS Ramchandra Rao further observed that the defendants had acted diligently once they became aware of the decree. The High Court also criticised the District Judge for insisting that the legal heirs of a deceased appellant file a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for substitution, describing the requirement as unsupported by law.
The judgment stated that the defendants were “victims of circumstances” rather than parties attempting to delay the legal process. The court found no evidence suggesting a lack of bona fides, deliberate negligence, or intentional inaction on their part.
Emphasising the importance of substantive justice over procedural hurdles, the High Court remarked that denying the appellants an opportunity to contest the matter on merits would amount to a travesty of justice given the facts of the case.
Accordingly, the High Court restored the appeal, ordered the substitution of the deceased appellant’s legal heirs, stayed the execution proceedings arising from the original decree, and directed the District Judge, Gomati, to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits within four months.
| Also Read: Tripura-Gujarat Police Bust Alleged Minor Trafficking Attempt |
The ruling is expected to serve as an important precedent in cases involving elderly litigants, reaffirming that access to justice should not depend on technological proficiency. By recognising the challenges faced by senior citizens in navigating digital court systems, the Tripura High Court has underscored that procedural rules should facilitate justice rather than become barriers to it, particularly for vulnerable sections of society.
