Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 2120 (GAU)

JURI SARMA @ KALITA JURI SARMA KALITA v. BAPPI ALI AND 2 ORS

I.A.(Civil)/3394/2024 · 2026-04-27

Yarenjungla Longkumer

body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010211322024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3394/2024 JURI SARMA @ KALITA JURI SARMA KALITA W/O. MINTU KALITA, R/O. VILL.-ALEGJAN, P/O. AND P/S. CHHAYGAON, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS BAPPI ALI AND 2 ORS S/O. AMZAD ALI,, R/O. VILL.- HATIPARA, P/O AND P/S. CHHAYGAON, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781124. 2:SAIZUDDIN ALI S/O. AKBAR ALI R/O. VILL.-BILASIPARA WARD NO.-8 P/O. AND P/S. BILASIPARA DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783348. 3:REGIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 1ST FLOOR NILGIRI MANSION G.S. ROAD SATSANG VIHAR BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BHATTACHARYYA, Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K K BHATTA (R-3), A K BHATTACHARYYA(R-3),MS L SHARMA(R-3) Linked Case : JURI SARMA @ KALITA @ JURI SARMA KALITA VERSUS BAPPI ALI AND 2 ORS ------------ Advocate for : MR. A BHATTACHARYYA Advocate for : appearing for BAPPI ALI AND 2 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 28-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. A. Bhattacharyya. 2. The present application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed praying for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the MAC Appeal against the judgment and award dated 11.06.2024 passed in MAC Case No.80/2023 by the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup Amingaon. 3. The applicant by filing this application has submitted that the reasons for the delay has been set out at paragraph 2 to 4 of the application. 4. Notice on the respondents is completed. Page No.# 3/3 5. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are represented however, none appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Notice upon the respondent No.1 has also been delivered on 09.03.2026 however, none appears for the respondent No.1 also when the matter is called. 6. This Court has gone through the application and is of the view that the applicant has been able to show sufficient cause for the delay and in that view of the matter, technical grounds should not be allowed to defeat substantial justice. This Court is therefore inclined to allowed the instant application and the delay of 22 days in filing the MAC Appeal is condoned. 7. The petition is allowed. 8. Registry is directed register the MAC appeal and thereafter list the same for admission hearing after one week. JUDGE Comparing Assistant