Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010150262025 2025:GAU-AS:10894 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2512/2025 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT BHANGAGARH, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE VERSUS PRANTIK GAUTAM AND 3 ORS S/O LATE ANIL SARMAH, R/O GYANPEETH, CHOLADHARA, P.O. JORHAT, P.S. JORHAT, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN 785001, VILL. BHALUKEKHOWA, P.S. TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN 788701 2:HEMADHAR BARUAH S/O SRI BHOGESWAR BARUAH R/O SUTAR GAON P.S. PULIBAR DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN 785006 3:BUDHIN BORA S/O SRI DEW BORA R/O ELENGMORA @ ALENGMORA P.S. PULIBAR DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN 785006 4:PARIJAT DEVI Page No.# 2/3 W/O SRI ANUP JYOTI BORA CARE OF RAMANI BORA R/O BOHOTIA GAON P.S. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN 7851 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T KALITA, MR. A KAKATI Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : CS/0/0 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD GUWAHATI VERSUS PRANTIK GAUTAM AND ORS SONITPUR ------------ Advocate for : Tridib Kalita Advocate for : appearing for PRANTIK GAUTAM AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 18.08.2025 Heard Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the applicant Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. This is an application preferred by the applicant Insurance Company, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 22 days in preferring the connected review petition. Page No.# 3/3 The reasons for delay in not filing the connected review petition within the stipulated time, have been explained by the applicant in paragraph Nos. 3 to 8 of the connected accompanying application. On perusal of the explanation given in the above-noted paragraphs; this Court is satisfied that the applicant Insurance Company was prevented by a sufficient cause in preferring the connected review petition. That apart, the learned counsel for the Opposite parties, has not raised any objection for such condonation of delay. In view of the above; the delay of 22 days in preferring the connected review petition, deserves to be condoned. It is hereby, accordingly, ordered. The interlocutory application stands allowed and accordingly, stands disposed of. Registry shall register the connected review petition and list it for admission hearing after 2 weeks. JUDGE Comparing Assistant