Yaagam Bogo v. Desso Bogo

ORDER Date : 19.08.2024 Heard Ms. D. Tamuk, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶2This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been filed by the applicant for condoning the delay of 488 days in filing the Page No.# 2/2 connected interlocutory application for substituting the legal heir of the original in the SAO(C) No. 01(AP)/2020.

¶3Ms. Tamuk, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was prevented from approaching this Court within the period of limitation for the reasons mentioned in paragraph Nos. 4 & 5 of the condonation of delay application.

¶4Mr T. Tapak, learned counsel for the respondent has not objected to the prayer for condoning the delay.

¶5In view of the above, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as reasons mentioned in paragraph Nos. 4 & 5 of the condonation of delay application, this Court is of considered opinion that the applicant have sufficiently explained the delay caused in preferring the substitution petition by the applicant. Hence, this application is allowed and the delay of 488 days for preferring the substitution application by the applicant is hereby condoned.

¶6With the above observation, this interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC040010482024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/132/2024 Yaagam Bogo Son of Late Tumya Bogo, permanent resident of Dego Kamki village, PO and PS Kamba, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Desso Bogo Son of Late Dedek Bogo, permanent resident of Bogo village, Darak Circle, PO and PS Kamba, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : D. Tamuk Advocate for the Respondent : Tabit Tapak BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA