Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010191612026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/443/2020 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1000-E/8 RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITPUR JAIPUR RAJASTHAN- 302022 AND HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT B.R. ARCADE 3RD FLOOR 21 JANAPATH ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 IS REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. VERSUS SRI JITEN DAS AND 3 ORS S/O LATE PRANKRISHNA DAS R/O VILL PANIGAON DIMARUGURI P.S. AND DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 782001 2:MRS SHILPI DAS W/O JITEN DAS R/O VILL PANIGAON DIMARUGURI P.S. AND DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 782001 3:RAJIB SINGH S/O LT. RAMESH SINGH R//O VILL. NEPALLIPATTI Page No.# 2/3 TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN 784001 . OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-09-C-6843 TRUCK. 4:SRI SUBUDH DAS S/O LT. H.DAS R//O VILL.DULABARI NO.2 P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN 784001 . DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-09-C-6843 TRUCK. ------------ Advocate for : MR. R GOSWAMI Advocate for : appearing for SRI JITEN DAS AND 3 ORS In MACApp. Case No. 477/2025 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 16.09.2026 [1] Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P.C. Dey, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. [2] It appears that though this application was filed for condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring the connected appeal by the applicant/insurance company, however, after 08.05.2024, no order has been passed in this interlocutory application. [3] It appears that in the meanwhile, the Page No.# 3/3 connected MACAppeal has already been registered by the Registry, i.e. perhaps done on the strength of order dated 08.05.2024, passed in I.A.(Civil) Case No. 80/2020, which was in connection with the appeal No. I.A.(Civil) Case No. 477/2025. In the other appeal, it appears that due to oversight no order was passed in this interlocutory application. Since the prayer for condonation of delay has not been opposed to by any of the opposite parties and since the allowing of this interlocutory application merely remains upon a formality. [4] Hence, this interlocutory application after considering the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application is allowed and delay of 43 days in preferring the connected appeal is condoned. [5] This interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant