Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010211842024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3787/2024 MD. ROYAL ALI S/O LATE JAMIR ALI VILL.- NORTH JALUKBARI P.O.- GAUHATI UNIVERSITY P.S.- JALUKBARI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781014. VERSUS CHANDA DEVI JAIN AND ORS W/O LATE PRADIP KUMAR JAIN R/O MANI BHAWAN MALIGAON GATE GATE NO. 1 P.O.- MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 11 P.S.- JALUKABARI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 2:DIPAK JAIN S/O LATE PRADIP KUMAR JAIN R/O MANI BHAWAN MALIGAON GATE GATE NO. 1 P.O.- MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 11 P.S.- JALUKABARI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 3:VEENTI KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE PRADIP KUMAR JAIN R/O MANI BHAWAN MALIGAON GATE GATE NO. 1 P.O.- MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 11 P.S.- JALUKABARI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 4:POOJA JAIN D/O LATE PRADIP KUMAR JAIN R/O MANI BHAWAN MALIGAON GATE GATE NO. 1 P.O.- MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 11 P.S.- JALUKABARI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. D P CHALIHA Advocate for : K JAIN appearing for CHANDA DEVI JAIN AND ORS BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 06.08 .2025 Heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Roy, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and also heard Mr. S.A. Bakhtiar, learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 53 days in preferring the application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC to substitute the legal heirs of the deceased respondent/defendant, who suffered demise on 10.05.2024 during pendency of the connected appeal. Mr. Chaliha, learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that the delay in filing Page No.# 3/3 the application for substitution of legal heirs was due to the lapses and error committed by the Advocate's Clerk and the same is bonafide one and as such, it is contended to condone the same. Mr. Bakhtiar, learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents submits that he has no objection in condoning the delay of 53 days. Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the explanation so put forwarded in paragraph 5 of the application, this Court is of the view that the delay of 53 days in filing the substitution application is sufficiently explained and therefore, the same stands condoned. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE