Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010308892019 2025:GAU-AS:2539 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) I.A.(Civil)/2517/2018 ABDUL GAFUR S/O- LATE MAHAMMAD ALI R/O.- VILL- HAIDOBI MOUZA- BATADRABA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS AFIA KHATUN AND 12 ORS. W/O- LATE NURUL ISLAM 2:AZIZUL HAQUE S/O- LATE NURUL ISLAM 3:AZHARAUDDIN S/O- LATE NURUL ISLAM 4:ALIZA KHATUN D/O- LATE NURUL ISLAM 5:ON THE DEATH OF ABU TAHER HIS LEGAL HEIRS R/O- VILL- HAIDOBI P.O.- KADAMONI MOUZA- BATADARBA DIST.- NAGAON PIN- 782122 5.1:HASANARA BEGUM W/O- ABU TAHER 5.2:MISS ANJUMA KHATUN Page No.# 2/4 D/O- ABU TAHER 5.3:MISS SULTANA KHATUN D/O- ABU TAHER 5.4:MISS SABIQUN KHATUN D/O- ABU TAHER 5.5:MD. SHAHIDUL HOQUE S/O- ABU TAHER 5.6:MD. AKRAM HUSSAIN S/O- ABU TAHER ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL.- HAIDOBI P.O.- KADAMONI MOUZA- BATADARBA DIST.- NAGAON PIN- 782122 6:MARIUM NESSA D/O- LATE ABDUL MOZID R/O- VILL.- HAIDOBI P.O.- KADAMONI MOUZA- BATADARBA DIST.- NAGAON PIN- 782122 7:MALIKA KAHTUN D/O- LATE ABDUL MOZID R/O- VILL.- HAIDOBI P.O.- KADAMONI MOUZA- BATADARBA DIST.- NAGAON PIN- 782122 8:JOSNARA BEGUM D/O- LATE ABDUL MOZID R/O- VILL.- HAIDOBI P.O.- KADAMONI MOUZA- BATADARBA DIST.- NAGAON PIN- 782122 ------------ Advocate for : MR. R GOSWAMI Advocate for : MR. R J BORDOLOI appearing for AFIA KHATUN AND 12 ORS. Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 10.03.2025 1. Learned counsel Mr. R.Goswami is present for the applicant and learned counsel Mr. M.Boro is present for the respondent/opposite party Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. 2. This application under 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant praying for condoning the delay of 563 days. 3. The Respondent No. 5, Abu Taher, has expired on 13/05/2016. The legal heirs of Abu Taher are his wife Hasanara Begum, 3 daughters, viz., Miss Anjuma Khatun, Miss Sultana Khatun, and Miss Sabiqun Khatun and 2 Sons viz., Md. Shahidul Hoque, and Md. Akram Hussain. Now they are all necessary parties in this revision petition and therefore petitioner has already filed a substitution petition to bring the names of the surviving legal representatives of late Abu Taher in this revision petition as opposite parties. 4. The applicant begs to state that there is a delay of 563 days while filing the substitution petition to make the legal heirs of the respondent No.5 as party respondent in the connected CRP (I/O)No.56/2018. It is pertinent to mention here that no occasion arose in the Title Execution Case to substitute the same as the applicant had no knowledge about suits/appeals etc. pending before this court or any court. When the dasti service was received by the wife of late Abu Taher and this court has directed to substitute the names of legal heirs, thereafter the date of death was informed by the elder daughter of late Abu Taher to the wife of the applicant. Page No.# 4/4 5. The applicant is the bonafide purchaser of the plot of land under dispute and since he did not receive any notice from the court during the entire process of the suit as well as in the appeal and whereas the suit was passed exparte against him and somebody else had filed vakalatnama, petition etc. by forging his thumb impression, the said fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner, when he received the notice in the Title Execution Case No- 15/14. 6. The applicant submits that they are very poor and they will be homeless if the petition is not allowed for bringing the legal heirs of late Abu Taher in the revision petition and allow the prayer of the applicant. The applicant has a good case and there is every possibility of success of the Review petition. Hence, if the delay in preferring the substitution Application is not condoned they will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 7. There is no laches or negligence on the part of the petitioners in preferring the substitution Application beyond the period of limitation. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party has no objection against the condonation of delay of 563 days. The petitioner/ applicant has shown sufficient grounds. There was no wilful negligence on the part of the petitioner. 9. Considering the submissions, the delay of 563 days is hereby condoned. 10. In terms of the above observations, the interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant