Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010204892016 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/478/2016 SANJIB DUTTA S/O MUNINDRA NATH DUTTA, R/O JOYASAGAR JERENGA NAGAR, P.O. JOYSAGAR, P.S. SIVASAGAR, DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. VERSUS SMT. PUNYA BORAH and ANR, W/O LATE PRAFULLA BORAH, R/O NATUN LUNPURIA GAON, P.O. BARUA ALI, P.S. HALWATING, DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. 2:NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. GUWAHATI BRANCH OPP RAJIV BHAWAN G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.B GOGOI, MS.P BHATTACHARJEE Advocate for the Respondent : MR.U K DUTTAR-2, MR. G KHANDELIA,MR.A J SAIKIA(R- 2),MR.K BORAH(R-2),MR.B KAKATI(R-2) Linked Case : SRI SANJIB DUTTA VERSUS SMT PUNYA BORAH and ANR ------------ Advocate for : MS.P BHATTACHARJEE Advocate for : appearing for SMT PUNYA BORAH and ANR Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 27.08.2025 None has appeared on behalf of the applicant, on call. However, Mr. A. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, is present and has submitted that he has filed an objection in the matter. This is an application preferred by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 186/215 days in preferring the connected appeal. It is seen that the applicant had remained absent on several occasions before the Lawazima Court and failed to take steps upon the respondent. It further appears that the instant interlocutory application was last listed before this Court on 31.08.2016. Thereafter, the applicant has not taken any steps for listing of the same. Thus, it can be safely presumed that the applicant has not persuaded this interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay of 186/215 days in preferring the connected appeal, in right earnest and/or diligently. It is to be noted that although this matter has been listed today for referral to the Special Mediation Drive-‘Mediation for the Nation’; however, in the absence of the applicant, the same could not be referred for mediation either. Having regard to the inordinate delay of 186/215 days in preferring the connected appeal by the applicant as well as in the absence of sufficient explanation for condoning the delay, in question; this Court does not find any merit to condone such delay. Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands rejected. Consequently, the connected appeal which is yet to be registered, also stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant