Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010102922024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1611/2024 OHAB ALI S/O LT MOKSED ALI @ MUKSED ALI, VILL.- SUAPATA PART-5, P.S.- BILASHIPARA, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348. VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BONGAIGAON DIVISION, P.O. AND P.S.- BONGAIGAON, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 2:KISHAN KUMAR BOTHRA S/O BALCHAND BOTHRA VILL.- LAKHIPUR WARD NO. 3 P.O. AND P.S.- LAKHIPUR DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783129. 3:DIJENDRA NATH S/O PARENDRA NATH VILL.- HATOGAON P.O. AND P.S.- LAKHIPUR DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783129 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z HUSSAIN, MR. M HOQUE Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : MS. R D MOZUMDAR (R-1), MR. S P SHARMA(R-1),MS. C MOZUMDAR(R-1) Linked Case : OHAB ALI VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND 2 ORS. A ------------ Advocate for : MR Z HUSSAIN Advocate for : appearing for ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND 2 ORS. A BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 27.05.2025 Heard Mr. M. Hoque, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Notice has been duly served to the respondent No. 3. However, none has represented the respondent No. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 10 days in preferring the connected appeal. Page No.# 3/3 In regard to the respondent No. 2, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has challenged the quantum of the award and therefore, the respondent No. 2 is not required to be heard in the proceeding of this case as he is the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, his name should be struck off from the memo of appeal. Mr. Hoque, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay occurred in filing the connected appeal is not intentional. He further submits that detailed ground of delay has been explained in the petition. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. The delay has been satisfactorily explained by the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 did not raise any objection against the prayer of the applicant. Considering all, the delay of 10 days is condoned and the name of the respondent No. 2 is struck off from array of the respondents in the cause title in this application at the risk of the applicant. The Registry is directed to do the needful and shall register the connected appeal and list it in admission column. With the above observation, I/A stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant