Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010200922023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2799/2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. A CENTRAL GOVT. UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, STARCITY COMPLEX, GS ROAD, LACHITNAGAR, GUWAHATI 781007, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE,LACHIT NAGAR, GUWAHATI 781007 VERSUS KRISHNA BORAH AND 3 ORS. W/O LATE BIJOY BORAH, RESIDENT OF NO. 1 LAZUM THERMAL ROAD, PO AND PS MARGHERITA, DIST TINSUKIA, ASSAM 786181 2:SRI SUSHIL KALITA S/O LATE DHARMESWAR KALITA RESIDENT OF ST. JAMES SCHOOL MARGHERITA PO AND PS MARGHERITA DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786181 3:SRI SUREN CHAW S/O SRI CHAHARAI CHAW RESIDENT OF SUKHANPUKHURI TINGRAI PO TINGRAI PS DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 78617 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R D MOZUMDAR, MR. S P SHARMA,MS. C MOZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : MR H P GUWALA (R3), MR. A BORO (R3) Page No.# 2/3 Linked Case : NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VERSUS KRISHNA BORAH AND 3 ORS. A ------------ Advocate for : MS. R D MOZUMDAR Advocate for : appearing for KRISHNA BORAH AND 3 ORS. A BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 06.06.2025 Heard Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Boro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3. 2. The applicant has taken steps upon the respondent no.1 by way of dasti service and also filed compliance affidavit, and I have perused the same. 3. In view of the above, the notice upon the respondent no.1 is deemed to have been duly served, however, no one appears on behalf of the respondent no.1. 4. This is an application filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act read with section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay Page No.# 3/3 of 357 days in filing the connected appeal. 5. The ground for delay in filing the connected appeal has been explained in paragraphs 3-10. On perusal of the ground stated in the above paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the connected appeal within the stipulated time. Moreover, respondent no.3 has no objection condoning the delay. 6. The respondent no.1, despite receipt of notice did not appear. It is therefore presumed that the respondent no.1 has also no objection in condoning the delay. 7. In view of the above, the delay of 357 days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned. 8. With the above, this I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. 9. The Registry shall register the connected appeal and placed it for admission by showing Mr. A. Boro, as the learned counsel for the respondent no.3. JUDGE Comparing Assistant