Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010108652025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1755/2025 CHAND RATAN SINGHANIA S/O- LATE SRIKISHAN DAS SINGHANIA, R/O- SIVA MARKET, S.S. ROAD, FANCY BAZAR, P.O. AND P.S.- PAN BAZAR, PIN- 781001, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS RIJU PRASAD SARMA SON OF LATE BRAJA NATH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF KAMAKHYA, P.O. AND P.S.- PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-1, DIST.- KAMRUP(METRO), ASSAM. 2:HRABA JYOTI GOUTAM SON OF SRI INDRA SARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AGDOLA P.O. AND P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S. DEY, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R K JAIN, Linked Case : CRP(IO)/437/2024 CHAND RATAN SINGHANIA S/O- LATE SRIKISHAN DAS SINGHANIA R/O- SIVA MARKET Page No.# 2/4 S.S. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.O. AND P.S.- PAN BAZAR PIN- 781001 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. VERSUS RIJU PRASAD SARMA AND ANR SON OF LATE BRAJA NATH KUMAR RESIDENT OF KAMAKHYA P.O. AND P.S.- PANBAZAR GUWAHATI-1 DIST.- KAMRUP(METRO) ASSAM. 2:DHRABA JYOTI GOUTAM SON OF SRI INDRA SARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AGDOLA P.O. AND P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. B BORAH Advocate for : MR. R K JAIN appearing for RIJU PRASAD SARMA AND ANR Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 15.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Borah, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R. K. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant for condoning the delay of 97 days in filing the application for setting aside of the abatement as well as the filing the petition for substituting of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No. 2, namely, Dhraba Jyoti Goutam. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though, the respondent No.2 died on 30.11.2024, however, the applicant came to know about the said fact only on 21.01.2025. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has explained the ground for delay in approaching this Court for filing setting aside of the abatement and substitution petition beyond the prescribed period of limitation in paragraph No. 9, 10 and 11 of the condonation of delay application. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that since after abatement of the suit against the respondent No.2, the suit against the respondent No. 2 got finality and, therefore, if the delay is condoned at this stage, some cost may be awarded. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Page No.# 4/4 applicant as well as the grounds stated in paragraph Nos. 9 to 11, in the application for condoning the delay, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has been able to show sufficient cause, which prevented him from approaching this Court in setting aside and substituting of the legal heirs of the respondent No. 2 within the prescribed period of limitation. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to allow this application and condone the delay of 97 days in filing the application for setting aside of the abatement and substituting all the legal heirs of the respondent No.2. JUDGE Comparing Assistant