Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010249312024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3826/2024 SATYAJIT SHARMA @ RAJU SHARMA S/O LATE BHUBAN CHANDRA SHARMA, RESIDENT OF DAS COLONY PO AND PS SILCHAR DIST CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS SWAPAN GHOSH S/O LATE GANESH CHANDRA GHOSH, RESIDENT OF SARATPALLY, PO AND PS SILCHAR, DIST CACHAR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR GAURAV R DUTTA, MR. D MOZUMDER,MR. D MAZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D CHAKRABARTY , MS D.CHAKRABARTY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Order XLI Rule 3A of the CPC, is preferred by the applicant for condoning the delay of 246 days in preferring connected appeal, against the judgment and decree dated Page No.# 2/4 19.12.2023, passed in Money Suit No. 33/2020, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Cachar at Silchar (trial court hereinafter). 3. It is to be noted here that vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2023, the learned trial court had decreed the suit for realization of a sum of Rs. 86,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its full realization. 4. Mr. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the applicant, taking this Court through the additional affidavit filed by the applicant submits that the applicant is ready to pay the decretal sum by selling the land and house standing thereon. But, one person, who was examined as PW2 in the title suit, has been preventing the applicant from selling the property, for which he is not in a position to honored the decree. Mr. Mozumdar further submits that at the instance of the opposite party one application was filed before the learned executing court, wherein the property has been attached and now, it has been ordered for auction sell of the same and the said order will also be challenged by filing a civil revision petition. 4.1. Mr. Mozumdar further submits that the decree was passed on 19.12.2023 and after passing of the decree, the engaged counsel of the applicant did not inform the applicant about the same and he came to know about the disposal of the title suit only when notice was issued to him in the Money Execution Case No. 14/2024. Mr. Mozumdar further submits that the applicant is suffering from ailments of heart with 70% of blockage and therefore, he could not prefer the appeal in time and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and the same has sufficiently been explained in the paragraph No. 7 of this application and therefore, it is contended to allow the same. 5. Per-contra, Mr. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the opposite party, has vehemently opposed the application. Mr. Chakrabarty taking this Court through the Page No.# 3/4 objection filed by the opposite party submits that the medical documents enclosed with the application to substantiate that the applicant is suffering from ailments of heart, relates to the period prior to the decree being passed in the title suit. Mr. Chakrabarty further submits that after contesting the case all along, the applicant slept over the decree for a considerable period and thereafter, he has decided to prefer an appeal, which already became time barred and therefore, he has filed this application and his approach is not bona-fide. Mr. Chakrabarty also submits that the delay has not sufficiently been explained and therefore, he has contended to dismiss this application. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application as well as the documents placed on record. 7. It appears that the judgment and decree was passed on 19.12.2023 and the applicant came to know about the same on 20.11.2024, when he received notice in the Money Execution Case No. 14/2024. It also appears that the applicant is suffering from ailments of heart and he was diagnosed with 70% of blockage with high levels of creatinine in his body. Though it is submitted by Mr. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the opposite party, that the medical documents of the applicant pertains to the period of before pronouncement of the judgment, yet it cannot be said that he recovered from the said ailments. 8. Thus, in view of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also in view of the explanation, so put forwarded in the application, especially in paragraph Nos. 6 – 9, this Court is of the view that the delay has sufficiently been explained. And therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the same. 9. Accordingly, the delay of 246 days in filing the connected appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2023, stands condoned. Page No.# 4/4 10. Now, the registry shall proceed to register the appeal and list the same as soon as practicable before the Court. 11. In terms of above, this IA stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant