Court Grants 82-Year-Old Woman 8-Year Appeal Extension

When Thupa Bala Sardar walked into court at age 82, she was already two decades into fighting for her land. She had no idea her first appeal had been dismissed eight years earlier.

The Calcutta High Court faced an unusual question this month. Could they allow an appeal filed 2,340 days past its deadline? For most cases, the answer would be a firm no.

But Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury saw something different in this case. An illiterate tribal woman from a remote village, more than 300 kilometers from Kolkata, had spent eight years in trial court and another eight in appeals court. She wasn't dodging deadlines out of neglect.

Sardar suffers from multiple age-related illnesses and memory loss. Living in a rural area far from regular court access, she had to rely entirely on lawyers and family members for updates. She simply didn't know her case had been decided.

The breakthrough came during a chance meeting in August 2024. A court clerk mentioned her dismissed appeal in passing. Shocked, Sardar immediately asked her son to obtain the legal documents and filed her second appeal.

Her lawyers explained that the delay stemmed from unavoidable circumstances: advanced age, prolonged illness, memory problems, illiteracy, and geographic isolation. The opposing side argued she hadn't proven sufficient cause, but filed no formal objection.

Why This Inspires

Justice Chowdhury looked beyond the technicalities. He recognized that someone who had already spent 16 years pursuing justice shouldn't lose everything because old age had stolen her memory. The court granted her appeal with one condition: she must pay 6,000 rupees to the opposing side and 2,000 rupees to the legal services committee.

The ruling acknowledges a simple truth often forgotten in legal proceedings. Not everyone has equal access to justice. An elderly, illiterate woman living in a remote village faces barriers that urban, educated litigants never encounter.

The judge noted that exhaustion naturally follows years of litigation. When that exhaustion combines with old age, poverty, or illness, people deserve compassion rather than rigid adherence to deadlines.

This wasn't about bending rules arbitrarily. Section 5 of India's Limitation Act specifically allows courts to excuse delays when sufficient cause exists. The law already recognizes that justice matters more than timelines.

Sardar's case now moves forward, giving her another chance to defend her land rights after two decades of persistence.