Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010108432025 2025:GAU-AS:11611 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1710/2025 HIRAMA GOGOI @ HIRAMAY BARUAH AN ANR. W/O. RANJAN KR. BARUAH, R/O. VILL.- RONGCHEDON, P/O. AN P/S. DIPHU, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782460. 2: RANJAN KR. BARUAH S/O. LT. GADADHAR BARUAH R/O. VILL.- RONGCHEDON P/O. AN P/S. DIPHU DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-782460 VERSUS KABITA MAIBANGSA AND 3 ORS. W/O. LT. PADMA MAIBANGSA, R/O. VILL.- VALLEY VIEW, RONGKHELAN, P/S. DIPHU, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782462. 2:PHAIRING MAIBANGSA S/O. LT. PADMA MAIBANGSA R/O. VELLEY VIEW RONGKHELAN WARD NO. 8 P/O. RONGKHELANM P/S. DIPHU DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-782462. 3:LAIRING MAIBANGSA S/O. LT. PADMA MAIBANGSA R/O. VELLEY VIEW RONGKHELAN WARD NO. 8 P/O. RONGKHELANM P/S. DIPHU Page No.# 2/3 DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-782462. 4:THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIPHU BRANCH M.G. ROAD DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-782460 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R SODIAL, MR K BROOK Advocate for the Respondent : MR T KALITA (R4), MR. S BATHARI(R-1,2,3),MR. M P CHOUDHURY (R-1,2,3),MR. A KAKATI (R4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 29.08.2025 Mr. K. Brook, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant No. 2 being the driver of the offending vehicle has been inadvertently arrayed as an applicant in this interlocutory application. The learned counsel has, therefore, prayed for striking-off the name of the applicant No. 2 from the array of the applicants of this interlocutory application. Prayer is accepted. Registry shall do the needful action accordingly. This is an application preferred by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 21 days in preferring the connected appeal. The reasons for delay in not filing the connected appeal within the stipulated time, have been explained by the applicant in paragraphs No. 2, 3 & 4, of the application. Moreover, Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the Opposite Party/Insurance Company has no objection to such condonation of delay. Page No.# 3/3 On perusal and consideration of the explanation given in the above-noted paragraphs; this Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by a sufficient cause in preferring the connected appeal within the stipulated time. In view of the above; the delay of 21 days in preferring the connected appeal, deserves to be condoned. It is hereby, accordingly, condoned. The interlocutory application stands allowed and accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant