Urbashi Bharali and 2 Ors v. Hemoprova Kakoty

ORDER Date : 22.10.2024

Heard Mr. K.R. Borooah, learned counsel for the applicants.

¶2Office note dated 21.10.2024, indicates that neither A/D card nor unserved notice as well as service report has been received in respect of the sole respondent, which was issued on 12.09.2024.

¶3Mr. Borooah, learned counsel for the applicants, by referring a report of the track consignment of the Postal Department, submits that the item was delivered to the addressee on 17.09.2024, but till date nobody entered appearance on behalf of the sole respondent despite of service of notice upon him.

3.1. Mr. Borooah also submits that this interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 324 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Golaghat, in Title Appeal No. 2/2019. Mr. Borooah further submits that the connected appeal could not be preferred in time and that the ground for delay is explained in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the application and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and the same has been sufficiently explained and therefore, it is contended to condone the same.

¶4Having heard the submission of Mr. Borooah, learned counsel for the applicants, I have carefully gone through the application, especially paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Page No.# 3/3

¶5It is stated that the husband of the applicant No. 1 expired on 09.11.2020 and she came to know about the case when she received notice of a pending execution case, being Title Execution Case No. 1/2024, and though she had consulted with her earlier engaged counsel, he had stated that he is unable to file the second appeal. Thereafter, the applicants have approached the District Legal Services Authority, Golaghat, wherein the applicants were asked to apply for certified copy of the entire record and thereafter taking due approval, certified copies were forwarded to the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority. And as such, delay of 324 days occasioned in preferring the appeal which appears to be not intentional.

¶6Considering the explanation so forthcoming from the application as well as from the submission of Mr. Borooah, learned counsel for the applicants, this Court is of the view that the delay in preferring the connected appeal has sufficiently been explained in this application and therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 324 days in preferring the connected appeal.

¶7In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of.

¶8It is provided that Registry shall register the connected second appeal and list the same before this Court, preferably on 24.10.2024. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010183092024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oI.A.(Civil)/2738/2024o URBASHIoBHARALIoANDo2oORSo W/OoLATEoKUMUDoBHARALI,o RESIDENToOFoBENGENAKHOWA,oPOoBENGENAKHOWA,oMOUZAo MOUKHOWA,oDISToGOLAGHAT,oASSAMo785702 2:oASHWARJYAoRANIoBHARALI oD/OoLATEoKUMUDoBHARALI o RESIDENToOFoBENGENAKHOWA oPOoBENGENAKHOWA oMOUZAoMOUKHOWA oDISToGOLAGHAT oASSAMo785702 3:oPRASURJYAoRANIoBHARALI oD/OoLATEoKUMUDoBHARALI o RESIDENToOFoBENGENAKHOWA oPOoBENGENAKHOWA oMOUZAoMOUKHOWA oDISToGOLAGHAT oASSAMo78570o VERSUSo HEMOPROVAoKAKOTYo W/OoSRIoNITYANANDAoKAKOTYo RESIDENToOFoBOKOTIALoGAON,oPOoSALIKHAT,oMOUZAoKACHARIKHAT,o DISToGOLAGHAT,oASSAMo785625 AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oKoRoBOROOAH,o Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN