Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010229882024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3745/2024 ABDUL SAMAD CHAUDHURY S/O LATE ABDUL A RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RANGOLU URIAGRANT TUBUKI PS NAGAON SADAR, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS UMESH KALITA AND ANR S/O LATE RAMESWAR KALITA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAMPUR BHALBALIA GAON, PS KAMPUR, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM 782426 2:M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GIC LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR SHREEJI TOWER GANESHGURI GS ROAD GUWAHATI 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MONDAL, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P HAZARIKA (R-2), MR. H S BORAH(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 01.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. D. Mondal, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. It appears from the report of process server which is available in the Page No.# 2/3 record that the notice issued to respondent No. 1 through usual mode has been duly served on the respondent No. 1. However, none has appeared for the respondent No. 1 today. 3. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the applicant, namely, Abdul Samad Chaudhury/claimant praying for condonation of delay of 410 days in preferring the connected appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was suffering from various ailment, the details of which has been mentioned in the paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the instant interlocutory application. He submits that in the aforesaid paragraph, the applicant has sufficiently explained to cause of delay in preferring the connected appeal. 5. Mr. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, considering the grounds shown by the applicant in the instant interlocutory application, has not objected to the prayer for condonation of delay. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 7. After going through the grounds stated in paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the instant interlocutory application, this court is of considered opinion that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in approaching this court for preferring the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, the delay of 410 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed. 8. The Registry is directed to register the connected MAC appeal and list Page No.# 3/3 the same for admission after a week on a date to be fixed by it. 9. The name of Mr. P. Hazarika may be reflected in the cause-list as engaged counsel for the Insurance Company. JUDGE Comparing Assistant