Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010141982023 2025:GAU-AS:2928 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1833/2023 ASAB UDDIN AND 6 ORS S/O LATE AHMED ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KILURBOND, PO LEELACHILLA, PS RATABARI, DIST KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, 788734 2: ALA UDDIN S/O LATE AHMED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KILURBOND PO LEELACHILLA PS RATABARI DIST KARIMGANJ ASSAM 788734 3: NAZIM UDDIN S/O LATE AHMED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KILURBOND PO LEELACHILLA PS RATABARI DIST KARIMGANJ ASSAM 788734 4: MUSSTT. BEGUM D/O LATE AHMED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KILURBOND PO LEELACHILLA PS RATABARI DIST KARIMGANJ ASSAM 788734 Page No.# 2/5 5: MUSSTT. MONOWARA BEGUM D/O LATE AHMED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KILURBOND PO LEELACHILLA PS RATABARI DIST KARIMGANJ ASSAM 788734 6: MUSSTT. ANOWARA BEGUM D/O LATE AHMED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KILURBOND PO LEELACHILLA PS RATABARI DIST KARIMGANJ ASSAM 788734 7: RAHMAT ALI S/O LATE AYUB ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KILURBOND PO LEELACHILLA PS RATABARI DIST KARIMGANJ ASSAM 78873 VERSUS SUNAB ALI S/O LATE AYUB ALI VILLAGE SARKARIBARI, PO AND PS RATABARI, DIST KARIMGANJ, ASAM 788735 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R TALUKDAR, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR. M ALAM,MR H K BARUAH Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 19.03.2025 Heard Mr. A. R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants and Mr. M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party. 2. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicants for condoning the delay of 549 days in filing the connected regular second appeal. 3. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants submits that though the judgment was pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court on 30.08.2017, yet, the regular second appeal was filed on 09.08.2019, and as such, there is delay of 549 days and the same has duly been explained in the paragraph No.8, of this application. 3.1 Mr. Talukdar, further submits that the applicant Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are illiterate married women and they were not aware of the outcome of the appeal and that applicant No.7 is an old man, aged about 80 years, and he cannot moved properly and was also not aware of the same and that the applicant No.1, is a daily wage earner and he left for Bangalore for his livelihood and applicant Nos. 2 & 3, are also daily wage earners and they are also living hand to mouth and they are also illiterate, and that the engaged counsel of the applicants had also not informed about the outcome of the appeal and handed over the files to the applicants lately, and therefore, they could not approach this Court by filing the appeal within a stipulated period, and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and he has a arguable case and the same has to be heard on merit and as such, the delay may be condoned and that the appeal may be Page No.# 4/5 heard on merit and therefore, it is contended to allow the application. 4. On the other hand Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party submits that the interlocutory application for condonation of delay of 549 days in filing the regular second appeal was filed after three years, nine months, of filing the regular second appeal and there is no explanation to that effect, though some explanation has been offered in paragraph No.8, of the application for delay of 549 days. 4.1 Mr. Choudhury further submits that though some averments have been made against the conducting counsel, the said counsel is not a party before this Court and as such, the veracity of the aforesaid averment cannot be ascertained in this application and under such circumstances, Mr. Choudhury, submits that the application may be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the statement and averment made in the paragraph No.8, of the application. 6. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also taking note of the explanation so forthcoming for delay of 549 days in filing the connected second regular appeal, and taking a pragmatic approach on the issue, this Court is of the view that the delay of 549 days, in filing the connected second regular appeal is sufficiently explained and therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the delay of 549 days in filing the connected second regular appeal stands condoned. 7. The registry shall register the connected second regular appeal and list the same before the Court as soon as applicable. Page No.# 5/5 8. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party submits that the memo of appeal has not been furnished to him. 9. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants submits that he will furnish a copy of the same during the course of the day. 10. In terms of above the I.A. stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant