Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010201272025 2025:GAU- AS:13676-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3039/2025 MD NURUL HAQUE AND 2 ORS S/O LT. ABDUL HAMID, 2: MOMINA KHATUN W/O MD. NURUL HAQUE 3: SK AHMMAD ALI S/O MD. NURUL HAQUE ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE- BAIHATI NELLIE 1 NO. BARPAIK P.O.- NELLIE P.S.- JAGIROAD DISTRICT- MORIGAON 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 SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR BLOCK-C ASSAM SECRETARIAT Page No.# 2/5 DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) MORIGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN782105 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., BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 13-10-2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury,J) 1. Heard Mr. M. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. R.R.Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K.Medhi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1. 2. The present Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is filed seeking condonation of the delay of 4489 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 256/2013. Page No.# 3/5 3. The fact in a nutshell is that by the order dated 27.04.2012 passed in F.T.Case No. 72/2007, the Foreigners’ Tribunal (1st), Morigaon, declared the applicants as foreigners, who entered into Assam from the notified territories post 1971. Such a declaration, though, was challenged by the applicants in WP(C) No. 5549/2013 before this Court; however, learned Single Judge dismissed the same under its order dated 06.03.2014. Subsequently, the applicants preferred writ appeal being W.A. No. 211/2015 and the same was also dismissed by order dated 07.09.2015. 4. The applicants projects that they are now intending to approach a competent Civil Court seeking a positive declaration of their citizenship; however, they 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 them to approach the Civil Court seeking a positive declaration of their Indian citizenship. 5. The only ground pleaded in the application is that the applicants 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 applicants that the above judgment adversely affects the applicants’ rights 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. Page No.# 4/5 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. 5549/2013 was dismissed on 06.03.2014, upholding the declaration of the Foreigners’ Tribunal dated 27.04.2012 and such determination was also upheld by the learned Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 07.09.2015 passed in W.A. No.211/2015. Admittedly, the applicants have decided to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration in the year 2025, i.e., after almost 13 years from the order passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal and nearly 10 years after the final decision rendered by the Division Bench in WA No. 211/2015. Except stating that they were 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 applicants bear the onus of explaining the delay, which the applicants have failed to do. Furthermore, the applicants waited 13 years to seek a declaration of their 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 applicants could learn that the law had already been laid down way back on 11.04.2013 in WP(C) Page No.# 5/5 No.256/2013, only on 31.05.2025, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the applicants were duly pursuing their rights in the meantime, which culminated on 07.09.2015 in WA No. 211/2015. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the applicants have 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 4489 days fails. The instant interlocutory application is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant