Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 1939 (GAU)

SMTI RANU KALITA AND ANR v. SRI CHAITANYA GHOSH AND 2 ORS

I.A.(Civil)/3201/2024 · 2026-02-10

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010199962025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3201/2024 SMTI RANU KALITA AND ANR W/O SRI KAMAL KALITA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SALAGURI MOUZA GAYAN GAON PO KALOONGAON DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 2: SRI KAMAL KALITA S/O SRI HALIRAM KALITA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SALAGURI MOUZA GAYAN GAON PO KALOONGAON DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM VERSUS SRI CHAITANYA GHOSH AND 2 ORS S/O LATE ABHIMANYA GHOSH RESIDENT OF ABHOIPUR MOUZA SONARI TOWN WARD NO 1 C/O BHOJO TINAILI CHATIA HOTEL. SONARI TOWN PO AND PS SONARI TOWN SUB DIVISION CHARAIDEO DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785690 2:SRI SUNIL GHOSH S/O LATE NITYA NANDA GHOSH RESIDENT OF RAJADHAP WARD NO 13 SONARI TOWN Page No.# 2/5 PO AND PS SONARI SUB DIVISION CHARAIDEO C/O SUNIL TWO WHEELERS SONARI TOWN BHOJO ROAD DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785690 3:ON THE DEATH OF SRI BIPIN BHUIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS 3.1:SRIMOTI BHUIN W/O LATE BIPIN BHUIN PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAJADHAP IN THE SCHEDULE-A OF THE SUIT PREMISES SITUATED AT UTTAR SONARI GAON( SONARI GAON) WARD NO. 13 PO AND PS SONARI. DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN 785690 3.2:SRI GUNESWER BHUIN S/O LATE BIPIN BHUIN PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAJADHAP IN THE SCHEDULE-A OF THE SUIT PREMISES SITUATED AT UTTAR SONARI GAON( SONARI GAON) WARD NO. 13 PO AND PS SONARI. DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN 785690 3.3:SRI RAJU BHUIN S/O LATE BIPIN BHUIN PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAJADHAP IN THE SCHEDULE-A OF THE SUIT PREMISES SITUATED AT UTTAR SONARI GAON( SONARI GAON) WARD NO. 13 PO AND PS SONARI. DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN 785690 3.4:MONUJ BHUIN S/O LATE BIPIN BHUIN PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAJADHAP IN THE SCHEDULE-A OF THE SUIT PREMISES SITUATED AT UTTAR SONARI GAON( SONARI GAON) WARD NO. 13 PO AND PS SONARI. DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM Page No.# 3/5 PIN 785690 3.5:SMT. KAMALA BHUIN D/O LATE BIPIN BHUIN PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAJADHAP IN THE SCHEDULE-A OF THE SUIT PREMISES SITUATED AT UTTAR SONARI GAON( SONARI GAON) WARD NO. 13 PO AND PS SONARI. DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN 785690 ------------ Advocate for : MR G N SAHEWALLA Advocate for : MR. R S MISHRA appearing for SRI CHAITANYA GHOSH AND 2 ORS Linked Case : RSA/31/2019 SMTI RANU KALITA AND ANR W/O SRI KAMAL KALITA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SALAGURI MOUZA GAYAN GAON PO KALOONGAON DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 2: SRI KAMAL KALITA S/O SRI HALIRAM KALITA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SALAGURI MOUZA GAYAN GAON PO KALOONGAON DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM VERSUS SRI CHAITANYA GHOSH AND 2 ORS S/O LATE ABHIMANYA GHOSH RESIDENT OF ABHOIPUR MOUZA SONARI TOWN WARD NO 1 C/O BHOJO TINAILI CHATIA HOTEL. SONARI TOWN PO AND PS SONARI TOWN Page No.# 4/5 SUB DIVISION CHARAIDEO DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785690 2:SRI SUNIL GHOSH S/O LATE NITYA NANDA GHOSH RESIDENT OF RAJADHAP WARD NO 13 SONARI TOWN PO AND PS SONARI SUB DIVISION CHARAIDEO C/O SUNIL TWO WHEELERS SONARI TOWN BHOJO ROAD DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785690 3:SRI BIPIN BHUIN S/O SRI DISCO BHUIN PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAJADHAP IN THE SCHEDULE-A OF THE SUIT PREMISES SITUATED AT UTTAR SONARI GAON( SONARI GAON) WARD NO. 13 PO AND PS SONARI. DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785690 ------------ Advocate for : MR G N SAHEWALLA Advocate for : MR. R S MISHRA appearing for SRI CHAITANYA GHOSH AND 2 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. As per office note, A/D cards have been received back after service on respondent No. 3.1 to 3.5. Respondent No. 1 and 2 are already represented. However, none appears Page No.# 5/5 for the respondent No. 3.1 to 3.5. The instant application has been preferred seeking condonation of 400 days delay in filing the connected substitution petition. I have perused the grounds of reason for the delay as stated in the instant application. Learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no objection to the condonation of delay and none have appeared for the other respondents to oppose the prayer. Having regard to the reasons, I am satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 400 days in preferring the appeal stands condoned. IA stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant