Chumila Munda and Anr v. Premananda Gogoi and 2 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010089072023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oI.A.(Civil)/1229/2023o CHUMILAoMUNDAoANDoANR.o PERMANENToRESIDENToOFoSINGLIJANoTEAoESTATE,oP.O.oANDoP.S.-o LAHOAL,oDIST.-oDIBRUGARH,oASSAM-o786010. 2:oSUSHILoMUNDAo@oSUSILoMURA oPERMANENToRESIDENToOFoSINGLIJANoTEAoESTATE oP.O.oANDoP.S.-oLAHOAL oDIST.-oDIBRUGARH oASSAM-o786010o VERSUSo PREMANANDAoGOGOIoANDo2oORS.o S/OoT.R.oGOGOI,o VILL.-oNOHULA,o P.O.-oBAMUNBARI,o P.S.-oBORBAM,o DIST.-oDIBRUGARH,oASSAM,oPIN-o786613. 2:MINUoMAYAoSAIKIA oW/OoLATEoHORESWARoMAYAoSAIKIA o VILL.oANDoP.O.-oTIPLINGoBAHODHARI o P.S.-oNAHARKATIA o DIST.-oDIBRUGARH oASSAM-o786610. 3:THEoNATIONALoINSURANCEoCOMPANYoLIMITED oREP.oBYoITSoCHIEFoREGIONALoMANAGER oREGIONALoOFFICE oG.S.oROAD oBHANGAGARH Page No.# 2/3 GUWAHATI-781005 DIST.- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R BORA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K K BHATTA (R-3)

:: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

05.04.2024

Heard Mr. K.R. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel representing the opposite party Insurance Company.

¶2This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of 939 days of delay in preferring the connected MAC Appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the learned Member, MAC Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in MAC Case No.1692/2014.

¶3It has been submitted that the applicants are poor and uneducated persons. According to Mr. Bora, this is the reason why the delay took place.

¶4Mr. Bhatta, per contra, submitted that the learned counsel Mr. Bora was the engaged counsel for the applicants before the Tribunal. Therefore, he had full knowledge about the delay.

¶5After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the delay is inordinate and the same has not been satisfactorily explained.

¶6Therefore, this Court refuses to condone the delay.

¶7The prayer for condonation of delay is rejected. Page No.# 3/3 The Interlocutory Application stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant