Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010183402025 2025:GAU- AS:13245-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2852/2025 MUSSTT FAZAR BANU W/O SAIDUR RAHMAN, D/O LT. JAIMAT ALI, VILL. KATIMARI GRANT, .O. HERAPATI, P.S. NAGAON SADAR, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION DEPTT. 4TH FLOOR BLOCK C ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 4:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER NAGAON Page No.# 2/5 DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 782001 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 78200 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H MAZARBHUIYAN, N BRAHMA,MR R I BHUYAN,MS. L WAJEEDA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI Linked Case : CRP/0/0 MUSSTT FAZAR BANU NAGAON VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS NEW DELHI ------------ Advocate for : MR. ROSHIDUL ISLAM BHUYAN Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 24-09-2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury,J) 1. Heard Ms. L. Wajeeda, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. B. Devi, Page No.# 3/5 learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1; Mr. S. Baruah, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 & 4, Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3, and Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 5. 2. The present Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is filed seeking condonation of the delay of 4468 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 256/2013. 3. The fact in a nutshell is that an IM(D)T Case No. 267/1998 was filed by the applicant and the same was decided ex-parte on 03.02.2005. Subsequently, the applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with 3 (A) of the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order 1964, filed a review petition being Misc.Case No. 15/2015 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 03.02.2005, however, the said Misc. Case was rejected on 15.12.2015 holding the applicant as a foreigner, who entered into Assam from the notified territories post 1971. Such a declaration, though, was challenged by the applicant in WP(C) No. 1057/2016 before this Court; however, learned Division Bench dismissed the same under its order dated 23.02.2016. 4. The applicant projects that she is now intending to approach a competent Civil Court seeking a positive declaration of her citizenship; however, she could learn that a learned Single Judge, in WP(C) No. 256/2013, under its order dated 11.04.2013, already laid down that the Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction to determine the citizenship of a person. Being situated thus, the applicant, now, intends to challenge the order dated 11.04.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 256/2013, which is standing as a bar for her to approach Page No.# 4/5 the Civil Court seeking a positive declaration of her Indian citizenship. 5. The only ground pleaded in the application is that the applicant came to know about the order dated 11.04.2013, passed in WP(C) No. 256/2013, only on 31.05.2025. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the judgment above adversely affects the applicant's right to approach the Civil Court; therefore, the delay may be condoned. 6. By now, the law is well settled that the law of limitation is substantive in nature and the limitation periods cannot be extended on mere equitable consideration; the applicant must demonstrate reasonable, satisfactory and acceptable cause of delay. Though an inordinate delay, by itself, is not a bar to exercise its discretion; however, when the delay is inordinate and the explanation is vague, general, or illogical, the Court will refuse to condone such delay. 7. Yet another facet is that condonation cannot be granted merely for the reason that the applicant was not a party in the proceeding under challenge; the fact of not being a party may be relevant, but it is not, in itself, sufficient to demonstrate “sufficient cause”. The requirement remains that the applicant must explain the delay with particularity and so due diligence in seeking relief. 8. Now coming to the fact of the present case, admittedly, WP(C) No. 1057/2016 was dismissed on 23.02.2016 and admittedly, the applicant has decided to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration in the year 2025, i.e., after almost 10 years from the order passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 15/2015 and nearly 9 years after the final decision rendered by the Division Bench in WP(C) No. 1057/2016. Except stating Page No.# 5/5 that she was made aware of the order dated 11.04.2013 passed in WP(C) No.256/2013, only on 31.05.2025, no other explanation is given. The applicant bears the onus of explaining the delay, which the applicant has failed to do. Furthermore, the applicant waited 10 years to seek a declaration of her citizenship status in a Civil Court. 9. The effect of non-party status is to be examined in the context of whether the applicant acted promptly. In our considered opinion, the explanation that the applicant could learn that the law had already been laid down way back on 11.04.2013 in WP(C) No.256/2013, only on 31.05.2025, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the applicant was duly pursuing her right in the meantime, which culminated on 23.02.2016 in WP(C) No. 1057/2016. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the applicant has failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay. 10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the delay of 4468 days fails. The instant interlocutory application is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant