Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010114342026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1935/2026 MSTT GULSHAN BANU @ GULSHAN PARVEEN W/O- LT. MOZIBUR RAHMAN PERMANENTLY R/O. BARADIH BARRIYA, PO- PSKESHRIYA, DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN BIHAR, TEMP. ADD. WARD NO.14, KHELMATI, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND 2 ORS. 4RTH FLOOR ASTHA PLAZA,G.S ROAD OPP.S.B ULUBARI, GUAHATI, KAMRUPM,ASSAM. INSURER OF AS 12C 1824. 2:SRI ASHIM HAZARIKA S/O- LT. DURGARAM HAZARIKA R/O- KALYANPUR PO/PS- BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM OWNER OF AS 12C 1824. 3:SRI SURENDRA KUMAR RAI S/O- LT. BIZNANDAN RAI R/O-VILL-FALFAL KUNCH GOAN PO/PS- BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM DRIVER OF AS 12C 182 Advocate for the Petitioner : B R DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K K HANDIQUE(R2), MR T KALITA(R1),MR. T BARUKIAL(R2) Page No.# 2/5 Linked Case : RP(FAM.CT.)/0/0 MSTT GULSHAN BANU ALIAS GULSHAN PARAVEEN TEMP ADD NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM FROM BIHAR VERSUS THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD GUWAHATI ASSAM 2:ASHIM HAZARIKA BISWANATH ASSAM 3:SURENDRA KUMAR RAI BISWANATH ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : BOLU RAM DAS Advocate for : appearing for THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Linked Case : CS/0/0 MSTT GULSHAN BANU ALIAS GULSHAN PARVEEN W/O- LT. MOZIBUR RAHMAN PERMANENTLY R/O-BARADIH BARRIYA PO-PSKESHRIYA DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN BIHAR TEMP. ADD. WARD NO.14 KHELMATI NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 4RTH FLOOR ASTHA PLAZA G.S ROAD OPP.S.B ULUBARI GUAHATI KAMRUPM ASSAM. INSURER OF AS 12C 1824. Page No.# 3/5 2:SRI ASHIM HAZARIKA S/O- LT. DURGARAM HAZARIKA R/OKALYANPUR PO/PS- BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM OWNER OF AS 12C 1824. 3:SRI SURENDRA KUMAR RAI S/O-LT. BIZNANDAN RAI R/O-VILL-FALFAL KUNCH GOAN PO/PS- BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM DRIVER OF AS 12C 1824. ------------ Advocate for : BOLU RAM DAS Advocate for : appearing for THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 24.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. B. R. Das, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 2. It appears that notices to other respondents have not yet served. However, considering the pleas taken by the petitioner in the instant interlocutory application, as well as considering the fact that the insurance company is represented by its engaged counsel, notice to other opposite parties is waived in this case. 3. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condoning the delay of 56 days in preferring the review against order dated Page No.# 4/5 27.02.2026 passed in I.A. (Civil) No. 592/2025, whereby the said Interlocutory Application was dismissed. 4. The main reason shown by the present applicant in the instant Interlocutory Application for delay in preferring the review beyond the prescribed period of limitation is that the engaged counsel for the applicant could not inform her about the dismissal of her earlier Interlocutory Application as the applicant had lost her mobile. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that as he was the engaged counsel of the applicant in earlier Interlocutory Application, he tried on several occasions to intimate the applicant regarding dismissal of her earlier interlocutory application on 27.02.2026. However, it is only on 03.05.2026 the engaged counsel could inform the applicant regarding dismissal of the earlier Interlocutory Application. Thereafter, on the very next day, the engaged counsel for the applicant applied for certified copies of the impugned order and in the process, delay of 56 days has occasioned in preferring the connected review application. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. T. Kalita, has objected to the prayer for condoning the delay on the ground that the applicant has not clearly indicated as to why from 27.02.2026 till 03.05.2026, the applicant was unaware about the order dated 27.02.2026. He submits that the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant that he tried to contact the applicant on several occasions has not been pleaded in the instant Interlocutory Application. He, therefore, submits that the instant Interlocutory Application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Page No.# 5/5 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Interlocutory Application. 8. Though, the main contention of the applicant in this case is that she had lost her mobile, hence, the engaged counsel was unable to inform her regarding the fate of earlier Interlocutory Application, however, she has not indicated as to on which date her mobile was lost and when she procured a new mobile. 9. However, though, there are lapses on the part of the present applicants in pleading the facts properly in this Interlocutory Application which occasioned the delay of 56 days in preferring the connected review application, this Court is taking a lenient view of the matter and is inclined to condone the delay in this case. As such, the delay of 56 days in preferring the connected review application is hereby condoned and this Interlocutory Application is allowed. 10. The Registry is directed to register the connected review application and list the same in Orders column on 07.09.2026. JUDGE Comparing Assistant