Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010114652024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/215/2024 MITALI DEY AND ANR W/O- SHRI RATAN DEY, R/O- BANSHBARI BARUAH PATHAR, P.O. AND P.S. DIBRUGARH, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 2: RATAN DEY S/O- LATE CHITTARANJAN DEY R/O- BANSHBARI BARUAH PATHAR P.O. AND P.S. DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSA VERSUS SANDEEP KUMAR DEY AND ANR S/O- SRI SWAPAN KUMAR DEY, R/O- SOUTH JALAN NAGAR, P.O. C R BUILDING, P.S. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 2:BIKASH RANJAN ACHARYA S/O- SRI BROJEN CHANDRA ACHARYA R/O- CHOWKIDINGEE SOUTH JALAN NAGAR P.O. C.R. BUILDING P.S. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Sharma, Advocate Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 20.06.2025 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court have been invoked challenging the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the learned Court of the Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh in Misc. (J) Case No.35/2023 whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No.70/2019 was rejected. 3. It is relevant to take note of that when an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a judgment and decree is rejected, it amounts to confirmation of the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court by the learned First Appellate Court. Under such circumstances, a second appeal has to be filed before this Court on substantial question(s) of law. 4. Taking into account that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 specifically mandates an appellate remedy, the question of exercising the supervisory jurisdiction does not arise for which the instant application cannot be entertained. 5. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. Page No.# 3/3 6. Be that as it may, this Court duly takes note of the submission so made by Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel who submitted that on mistaken advice, the petitioners have filed the present proceedings and have been diligently pursuing. This Court further takes note of that the instant application is dismissed on the ground that it cannot be entertained in view of availability of remedy under Section 100 of the Code. Further, this Court accepts the submission so made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners have been diligently pursuing the present proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioners would be at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 100 of the Code before this Court subject to substantial questions of law being involved. 7. The period from 03.06.2024 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. 8. Interim order passed on 26.07.2024 stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant