Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010100302023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1254/2023 XXXX XXXX D/O JIBAN PRADHAN, R/O JOKAI, KONWAR GAON, P.S.- BORBORUAH, P.O.- HARAK PATAR, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786003. CURRENTLY RESIDING AT- NIZARAPARA HILL SIDE, BIRUBARI, P.O.- GOPINATH NAGAR, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781016. VERSUS XXXX XXXX S/O DIMBESWAE GOGOI, R/O JAKAI, KONWAR GAON, P.O.- HARAK PATAR, P.S.- BORBORUAH, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786003. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA, MR D BORUAH,MR. B B KAKATI,MR R DHAR Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. N.N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant submits that after effecting service of notice upon the opposite party by substituted mode (paper publication), an affidavit has been filed by the applicant. 3. It appears that the notice was published in the Asomiya Pratidin on 10.02.2026, and in that view of the matter, notice deemed to have been served. However, none appears for the opposite party. 4. This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is preferred by the applicant for condoning the delay of 45 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh, in Title Suit (D) Case No. 128/2018, whereby the title suit filed by the opposite party herein, under Section 13(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was allowed on contest. 5. Mr. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant, by referring to paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the application, submits that earlier the appeal was filed in time, but due to some defects, the same was not listed before the Court. Mr. Upadhyaya also submits that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial, and under such circumstances, he has contended to condone the same. 6. Having heard the submission of Mr. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the Page No.# 3/3 documents placed on record. 7. It appears from the statements and averments made in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the application that the delay has sufficiently been explained, and as such, this Court is inclined to condone the same. Accordingly, the delay of 45 days in preferring the connected appeal stands condoned. 8. In view of the order passed this I.A., now the Registry shall proceed to register the connected appeal and list the same before this Court as soon as practicable. 9. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant