Sanjay Karol, C.J. - (1.)The learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala dismissed the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, inter alia, on the ground that petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act.
(2.)It is here the Court finds the learned Judge to have committed a grave error, in ignoring the fact that petitioners had been persuading their remedies before different forums since 21.03.2016 onwards.
(3.)It is a matter of record that plaintiff/petitioners instituted a suit on 27.02.2012 [Civil Misc. (PMP) No.2 of 2014 titled as Sri Parimal Das and 2 others v. The Asset Manager, ONGC Ltd. and another], which was dismissed in default on 13.05.2015; on 21.03.2016, they preferred CRP No.45 of 2016, titled as Sri Parimal Das and others v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and others, which was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court, with liberty vide order dated 4.07.2016, whereafter on 23.11.2016 they filed an application seeking restoration of the suit; such application filed was also dismissed on 13.06.2017 against which, on 13.02.2018, they preferred first appeal FAO No.01 of 2018 titled as Sri Parimal Das and others v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and others. The said appeal was accompanied by an application under Section 5 seeking condonation of delay, which this Court favourably allowed. Eventually, vide order dated 10.01.2019, this Court allowed the said appeal by remanding the matter back to the trial Court for consideration afresh; it is this backdrop the trial Court has now passed the impugned order dated 28.02.2019.
;