Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010083962025 2025:GAU-AS:11242 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1390/2025 SRI JITENDRA KUMAR BARUAH SON OF LATE NARENDRA BARUAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARAL BHATTAPARA AZARA KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 2: SRI NABAJYOTI BARUAH S/O JITENDRA KUMAR BARUAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARAL PO BHATTAPARA PS AZARA DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS SRI RANJIT DAS SON OF LATE NEULA DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARA BHATTPARA AZARA KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 2:SRI PABITRA DAS S/O LATE NAUMAN DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARAL PO BHATTAPARA Page No.# 2/5 PS AZARA DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 3:SRI AJIT BAISHYA S/O LATE UPEN BAISHYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARAL PO BHATTAPARA PS AZARA DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 4:SRI HIREN DAS S/O LATE MADHURAM DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARAL PO BHATTAPARA PS AZARA DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 5:ON THE DEATH OF MUKUNDRA KUMAR BARUAH HIS LEGAL HEIRS 5.1:KABITA BARUAH DAS D/O MUKUNDA KUMAR BARUAH W.O NABAJYOTI DAS RESIDENT OF PUB MAZIRGAON PS AZARA DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781017 5.2:GITIMADHURI BARUAH D/O MUKUNDA KUMAR BARUAH RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 146 AMBARI FATASHIL NEAR TULA FACTORY PS FATASHIL DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 5.3:SRI PRANAB BARUAH S/O MUKUNDRA KUMAR BARUAH 6:SRI PRANAB BARUAH S/O SRI MUKUNDRA KUMAR BARUAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARAL Page No.# 3/5 PO BHATTAPARA PS AZARA DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. S SAHU Advocate for : MR K TALUKDAR appearing for SRI RANJIT DAS BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 22.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. S Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.C Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is a petition under Order 22 Rule 9 of the C.P.C praying for setting aside the abatement of FAO/62/2023. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/proforma respondent No. 5. It is stated that the applicants herein as appellants had preferred the connected FAO/62/2023 against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division No. 2, in Misc(J) Case No. 314 of 2022 arising out of title suit No. 250/2022 against the opposite parties wherein the predecessors – in- interest in opposite party No. 5A5B and 6 are arrayed as proforma respondent No. 5. The application of the respondent/plaintiffs for prohibitory injunction against the appellant/defendant was allowed in favour of the respondent/plaintiffs vide order dated 08.06.2023. It is stated that during the pendency of the F.A.O, proforma respondent No. 5 passed away on 30.08.2024 leaving behind the following legal heirs “(5A) Kabita Baruah Das, Daughter of Mukunda Kumar Baruah and wife of Nabajyoti Das Resident of Vill- Pub Mazirgaon, near L.P. School P.O- Bhattapara, P.S.- Azara, District kamrup (Metro), Assam, PIN. 781017, (5B) Gitimadhuri Baruah, Daughter of Mukunda Kumar Baruah, resident of house no.146, Ambari Fatashil, Near Tula factory, P.S.- Fatashil, District kamrup (Metro), Assam, 5(C) Sri Pranab Baruah, S/o: Mukundra Kumar Baruah (No.5(c) is already on record as Proforma respondent Page No.# 4/5 No. 6”. 4. That although the petition for substitution ought to have been filed by 28.11.2024 and the petition for setting aside the abatement by 27.01.2025, there occurred a certain amount of delay in preferring connected substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C and the application setting aside the abatement Order 22 Rule 9 of C.P.C owing to the reason that the deceased respondent was one of the defendants in the suit and therefore, upon the death of the said defendant the principal respondent filed an application for substitution of this suit. Therefore, the counsel representing the applicants, in the Ld. Trial Court, was under the impression that before this Court also, it was the duty of the respondent who are plaintiffs to substitute the deceased respondent. 5. That the learned counsel in the Ld. Trial Court had approached Mr. S Sahu the learned counsel appearing before this Court and she was informed on 17.03.2025 that the respondent had to do the needful and it is only then that the counsel got the knowledge that an application of substitution is required to be filed in the appeal itself before this Court. 6. Owing to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the substitution petition and the petition for setting aside the abatement could be filed only by 28.11.2024 and 27.01.2025 respectively. And thereby causing a delay of 74 days. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party are present and no serious objection has been raised by the opposite party. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that owing to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the substitution petition could be filed only by 28.11.2025 i.e. within 90 days. It is therefore, prayed that this petition may be allowed by setting aside the abatement of FAO/62/2023 after condoning the delay. 8. Prayer is allowed. 9. The abatement of FAO/62/2023 is set aside. 10. In terms of the above, the Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 JUDGE Comparing Assistant