Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15427 (GAU)

PURNIMA DAS AND 3 ORS. v. KALPANA NATH DAS AND 2 ORS.

I.A.(Civil)/153/2024 · 2025-04-22

Budi Habung

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010146282023 2025:GAU-AS:4824 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/153/2024 PURNIMA DAS AND 3 ORS. W/O LATE RAMESH DAS, R/O QUARTER NO. 173, OIL INDIA COLONY, DULIAJAN, P.S.- DULIAJAN, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. 2: ABHINAB DAS S/O LATE RAMESH DAS R/O QUARTER NO. 173 OIL INDIA COLONY DULIAJAN P.S.- DULIAJAN DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. 3: ANUPAM DAS S/O LATE RAMESH DAS R/O QUARTER NO. 173 OIL INDIA COLONY DULIAJAN P.S.- DULIAJAN DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. 4: DOLLY DAS D/O LATE RAMESH DAS R/O QUARTER NO. 173 OIL INDIA COLONY DULIAJAN P.S.- DULIAJAN DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS KALPANA NATH DAS AND 2 ORS. S/O SRI PARAM KUMAR DAS, VILL.- MORICHA GAON, P.S.- CHABUA, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 781121. 2:PRANAB PHUKAN S/O LATE DIGHALA PHUKAN VILL.- KHANJIKHUWA P.S.- CHABUA DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 781121. 3:NEW INDIA ASSAURANCE COMPANY LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE AT ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. (REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER) Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MONDAL, RANJU R S BARUAH,DR. U BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R GOSWAMI(R-3), MS. M SAIKIA(R-3),MS. P BORTHAKUR(R-3) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG O R D E R 23.04.2025 Heard Mr. D. Mondal, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. P. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. This is an application under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 420 days in preferring the connected appeal. Page No.# 3/3 The grounds of delay in preferring the appeal have been explained in paragraph nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the petition. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the grounds stated in the above paragraphs, this Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the connected appeal within the stipulated time. Moreover, the respondent/opposite party No.3 has no objection for condonation of delay of 420 days. In view of above, the delay of 420 days in preferring the connected appeal is condoned. With the above observation, the application stands allowed and disposed of. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to register the appeal and list for admission by showing the name of Ms. P. Borthakur, as learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. JUDGE Comparing Assistant