Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010172712024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3013/2024 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-7, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS NABA KUMAR NATH AND 2 ORS S/O.SRI. JATINDRA NATH, R/O. RAMCHAJHAR, P/S. GORESWAR, TAMULPUR, BAKSA, ASSAM. 2:SRI. MANASH DEKA S/O. LATE GANGA DEKA R/O. C/O.- MIR HUSSAIN ALI BAIHATA CHARIALI KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781381 3:SRI BHARAT KUMAR DEKA S/O. LATE SONA RAM DEKA R/O. C/O.- DHRUBA LAHKAR DHOPATARI P/O. AND P.S CHANGSARI KAMRUP ASSAM.PIN-781101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI, MR. R SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. N I CHOUDHURY (R-1), Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.05.2026 Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. J. Ikbal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. N.I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 2. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant for condoning the delay of 9 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal. 3. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant, referring to the office note dated 25.05.2026, submits that services in respect of opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 are yet to be completed. But, he has pointed out that the appeal is preferred against the quantum and as such, the opposite party No. 1 may not have any objection in the event of allowing this application and services of notice upon the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 are also not required. 3.1. Mr. Goswami further submits that after the impugned judgment and award being passed, the certified copy was sent to the dealing counsel for legal opinion, but the same could not be obtained in time and that the delay was not intentional, rather it was circumstantial and the same is sufficiently explained in this application and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ikbal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submits that he has no objection in the event of allowing this application by condoning the delay of 9 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal. 5. Accordingly, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both Page No.# 3/3 the parties and also considering the explanation so forthcoming for the delay of 9 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal, this Court is of the view that the delay of 9 days stands sufficiently explained in this application and therefore, the aforesaid delay in preferring the connected MAC Appeal, stands condoned. 6. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. 7. Now, the registry shall register the connected MAC Appeal. 8. Registry shall reflect the name of the counsel for the respondents in the cause-list while listing the MAC Appeal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant