Md. Tazir Uddin and 4 Ors v. Md. Taj Uddin and Ors

ORDER Date : 30.08.2024

Heard Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the applicants.

¶2None appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 despite notice having been served and vakalatnama having been filed by the learned counsel representing the aforesaid respondents. It further appears that the names of respondent Nos. 9, 10, 12 and 13 in connected revision petition have been struck off by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2023 in I.A.(Civil) No. 1173/2023 and the names of respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 have also been struck off vide order dated 14.11.2022 in I.A.(Civil) No. 2264/2022.

¶3This application is filed for condoning the delay of 336 days in filing an Page No.# 2/2 application under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of the CPC for an order of setting aside abatement.

¶4Mr. Quadir, learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to want of knowledge the aforesaid delay occurred which is beyond the control of the applicants and unintentional and therefore, the aforesaid delay warrants to be condoned by this Court.

¶5I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments made by the learned counsel for the applicants and also perused the grounds of delay averred in the instant miscellaneous application.

¶6Paragraph 6 of the miscellaneous application is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "6. That the death of the Defendant/respondents No. 3, 4 and 16 was not within the knowledge of the applicants/petitioners till the date of return of the notice by this Hon'ble court upon those respondents in the aforesaid Civil Revision Petition. After knowing about the death of the said respondents the applicants/petitioners enquired about their legal heirs, their address and the date of expiry and for which delay occurred in filing the petition for setting the abatement."

¶7It is apparent that because of want of knowledge about the death of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 16, the delay had occurred. The aforesaid explanation appears to be sufficient and bona fide.

¶8Accordingly, the delay of 336 days is condoned.

¶9In terms of above, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010008322011 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MC/1007/2015 MD. TAZIR UDDIN and 4 ORS VERSUS MD. TAJ UDDIN and ORS ------------ Advocate for : M J QUADIR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for MD. TAJ UDDIN and ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI