Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1959 DAILYLAW 65 (GAU)

BINITA CHETRY THAPA v. HAREKRISHNA SAHU AND 2 ORS.

I.A.(Civil)/1959/2026 · 2026-09-02

Mridul Kumar Kalita

Transfer Petitionbody1959

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010105702026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1959/2026 BINITA CHETRY THAPA W/O SRI KEMRAJ THAPA, R/O BOGABIL TOPIA, P.S.- JAMUGURI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS HAREKRISHNA SAHU AND 2 ORS. S/O MOHESH SAHU, R/O DHOLABIL, P.S.- JAMAGURI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784174 2:RUSEN URIA S/O LATE K. URIA R/O PABHOI P.S.- BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST- BISWANATH CHARIALI ASSAM, PIN- 784174 3:ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD. HAVING ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE AT GODREJ BUILDING G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007 (REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MONDAL, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 03.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. D. Mondal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. On perusal of the office note dated 31.08.2026, it appears that the Page No.# 2/2 postal track consignment report of notices issued to opposite parties indicate that the notices have been delivered to all the opposite parties. As such, the notices issued to opposite parties are held to be duly served. 3. Since, no one has appeared for the opposite parties when the matter was called, hence, this interlocutory application shall proceed ex-parte against the opposite parties. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant who submits that the reasons for delay have been stated by the applicant in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the instant interlocutory application. 5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as after going through the grounds stated in instant interlocutory application, this Court is of considered opinion that the reason for delay has been sufficiently explained and the present applicant was prevented by sufficient cause to prefer the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, the delay of 82 days in filing the MAC appeal is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed. 6. The Registry is directed to register the connected MAC appeal and list the same for admission after a week on a date to be fixed by it. JUDGE Comparing Assistant