NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. MANNA CHOUHAN AND 2 ORS
I.A.(Civil)/2692/2024 · 2025-04-27
Budi Habung
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17196 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17196 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010173712024
2025:GAU-AS:5124
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2692/2024 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 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 MANNA CHOUHAN AND 2 ORS S/O. SRI. RAMJIBAN CHOUHAN, R/O. VILL. ESTAMPUR, P.O. UDHARBOND, P.S. UDHARBOND, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788030 2:MD. BAHARUL ALAM LASKAR S/O. LT. HABIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR R/O. VILL. DAYAPUR PT-II P.O AND P.S. UDHARBOND DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788030 3:MD. SAHIDUL ALAM LASKAR S/O. LT. HABIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR R/O. VILL. DAYAPUR PT-II P.O AND P.S. UDHARBOND DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78803 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T KALITA, MR. A KAKATI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M TALUKDAR (R-1),
Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
ORDER Date : 28.04.2025
Heard Mr. T Kalita, learned counsel for the applicant. I have also heard Mr. M Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The Office Note dated 20.02.2025 reflects that service upon the respondent Nos.2 & 3 returned unserved with the statement by the process server that the respondents refused to accept the notice. Therefore, the notice was hung up on the front door of the respondents’ house. In view of the above, notice upon respondent Nos.2 & 3 is deemed to have been duly received. This is an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with section 173 of the M.V Act for condoning the delay of 83 days in filing the connected appeal. The grounds for delay in filing the connected appeal have been explained at paragraphs Nos.4 to 9. Having heard and on perusal of the statements made in the application seeking condonation of delay, this court is of the view that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in not preferring the connected appeal within time. Moreover, the
learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has also no objection if the delay is condoned. In view of the above, the delay of 83 days is condoned.
Page No.# 3/3 With the above, the I.A stands disposed of. Registry to register the connected appeal and list the same for admission hearing on a date to be fixed by the registry by reflecting the name of Mr. M Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in the cause list.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant