Jogen Pator, v. Md. Rustom Ali and 5 Ors,

O R D E R

22.03.2024

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 222 days in preferring the accompanying second appeal.

¶2It is relevant to take note of that this Court vide an order dated

30.01.2015 had issued notice. Till date, no service has been effected upon the respondents. It is also relevant to take note of that the petitioner was also directed to take steps by way of dasti upon the respondents. However, no steps have been taken by the petitioner till date.

¶3Under such circumstances, this Court, therefore, takes note of as to whether the instant application seeking condonation of delay is at all required to be further proceeded with taking into account that no steps have been taken by the appellant/petitioner inspite of issuance of Page No.# 3/4 directions to that effect. Under such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of the grounds assigned for condonation of delay.

¶4The record reveals that on 10.10.2013, the judgment and decree was passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.16/2011. Thereupon, it reveals that the applicant came to learn about the said judgment and order on 31.10.2023. The record further reveals that the certified copy of the said judgment and decree was applied on

07.11.2023 and on the same date, the certified copy was received. The said application further reveals that thereupon the applicant has been only taking steps for discussion as to whether to further pursue the filing of the appeal inspite of the fact that the learned counsel having advised the Applicant on 10.11.2023 itself that he should prefer an appeal. It is mentioned in the application that the applicant was also suffering from certain illness.

¶5This Court has duly taken note of the medical certificate which has been enclosed as Annexure-A to the application and from the said certificate, it reveals that the applicant was under treatment and medical advice and he was advised for complete rest for 1 ½ months w.e.f.12.12.2013. Thereafter, the applicant did not file the instant appeal rather the appeal was filed on 21.08.2014. There is no explanation after January 2014 why the applicants could not file the Appeal.

¶6Under such circumstances, this Court does not find the grounds assigned in the application as sufficient grounds for condoning the delay of 222 days in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, the instant Application stands rejected. Page No.# 4/4

¶7It is also observed that in view of the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the accompanying second appeal which is yet to be numbered cannot be entertained being barred by limitation.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010051972015 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oMC/156/2015o JOGENoPATOR,o S/OoLATEoDHULABORoPATOR,oR/OoVILL.oDHURASAP,oP.S.oandoMOUZAo MIKIRBHETA,oDIST.oMORIGAON,oASSAM. VERSUSo MD.oRUSTOMoALIoando5oORS,o S/OoHOBIBULLAH 2:MD.oRAHMANoALI oS/OoHOBIBULLAH oRESPONDENToNO.o1oANDo2oAREoR/OoMORIMUSALMANoGAON oMORIGAONoTOWN oP.O.oandoP.S.oMORIGAON oDIST.oMORIGAON oASSAM. 3:PITSINGoPATOR oS/OoLATEoDHULABORoPATOR 4:SUNILoPATOR oS/OoLATEoDHULABORoPATOR 5:CHANDRAoKANTAoPATOR oS/OoLATEoCHIDHBORoPATOR oRESPONDENToNO.o3 o4oANDo5oAREoR/OoVILL.oDHURASAP oP.S.oandoMOUZA-MIKIRBHETA oDIST.oMORIGAON Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM. 6:MD. NOBI HUSSAIN S/O BHUKHAI R/O VILL. CHOTORIBORI P.S. and MOUZA MIKIRBHETA DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM For the appellant (s) : Mr. U. Dutta, Advocate For the respondent (s) : None appears BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH