HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA IA No.01/2025 in FAO No.01 of 2025 FAO No.01 of 2025 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Agartala Division, RMS Chowmuhani, Opposite of Kiran Medical Hall, P.S. West Tripura-799001 .........Applicant/Appellant(s); Versus 1. Smt. Babli Bhadra, W/o Sri Babul Bhadra of Das Para, P.O. West Noabadi, P.S. Bodhjungnagar, District- West Tripura 2. M/s Pran Beverages, 31, Hari Ganga Basak Road, Jagat Bazar (First Floor), Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura .........Respondent(s). For Applicant/Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, Advocate, Mr. Kushal Deb, Advocate, Mr. Subhankar Deb, Advocate. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH Order 02/05/2025 Heard Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants on the delay condonation application being IA No.01/2025. 2. The first appeal was preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the order dated 16.10.2023 whereby CM (Condo) 53 of 2022 for condonation of delay of 132 days in filing an application for setting aside the ex parte order under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC was dismissed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala. 3. The applicant in the delay condonation application has calculated the period of delay as 48 days only which has been strongly objected by the respondents by filing an objection petition. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the time period of 90 days for filing an appeal against the impugned order, if discounted also, the present appeal has been filed on 25.02.2025 after more than 250 days (approximately). Petitioner has sought the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to exclude the period from 01.06.2024 to 26.09.2024 during which period he was pursuing a civil revision petition being CRP No.49/2024 against the same impugned order dated 16.10.2023 which was however withdrawn in order to prefer an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the CPC. Even thereafter the applicant has taken five months’ time to prefer the instant appeal on 25.02.2025. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any sufficient cause to condone the huge inordinate delay in preferring the instant first appeal against the order rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte order passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application is rejected. Consequently, the first appeal being FAO No.01/2025 is also dismissed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ Pijush/ MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA Date: 2025.05.05 19:04:31 +05'30'