Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010197092023 2025:GAU-AS:13424 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2701/2023 MD. RASHIDUL HOQUE S/O MD ABDUL SATTAR R/O VIL- DALANI JURIA, P.O. TINSUKIA DIST.NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM. 3:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GAONBORA BRANCH NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. 4:MD. NAZRUL ISLAM S/O LT. ABDUL BARIK R/O VILL- CHATIAN P.O. TINSUKIA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H MAZARBHUIYAN, MS. L WAJEEDA,MR. M H SAIKIA,MR R I BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MR. K M HASSAN(R-4),MR. J A AHMED (R- Page No.# 2/3 4),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 26.09.2025 Heard Mr. M.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned standing counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and Ms. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 1443 days in filing restoration application for restoration of WP(C) No. 3172/2015, which was dismissed for default on 31.08.2017. 3. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant submits that while the WP(C) No. 3172/2015, was listed before this Court on 31.08.2017, the conducting counsel for the applicant remained absent, for which the writ petition came to be dismissed. Mr. Saikia also submits that the applicant lost contact with his conducting counsel Mr. A. Sharif, who was bedridden for several years, and ultimately, on 14.08.2023, while he came to this Court to enquire about his counsel Mr. Shaif, he came to know that Mr. Sharif suffered demise during the COVID-19 pandemic period, and thereafter, the applicant had engaged another counsel and came to know that the writ petition filed by him came to be dismissed, vide order dated 31.08.2017. Mr. Saikia further submits that the delay in filing the restoration application is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial, and under such circumstances, the delay in filing the restoration application for restoration of WP(C) No. 3172/2015, may be condoned. Page No.# 3/3 4. Mr. Handique, learned standing counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and Ms. Baruah, learned Government Advocate for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 submit that they have no objection in the event of condoning the delay in filing the restoration application. 5. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also considering the statements and averments made in the application, especially in para Nos. 3 and 5, this Court is of the view that the delay of 1443 days has sufficiently been explained, and accordingly, the same stands condoned. 6. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant