Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19616 (GAU)

ELIUS AHMED v. HIMANGSHU BHUYAN AND ANR

I.A.(Civil)/3150/2024 · 2025-05-27

Malasri Nandi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010213852024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3150/2024 ELIUS AHMED S/O MADAR ALI RESIDENT OF PAHARPUR KATULI, PO BAGHBOR, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS HIMANGSHU BHUYAN AND ANR S/O LATE RAMESWAR BHUYAN VILLAGE SHANTINAGAR, WARD NO. 20 PO AND DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781314 2:CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AASTHA PLAZA GS ROAD ULUBARI OPP. SB DEORAH COLLEGE GUWAHATI 781007 DIST KAMRUP M ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R AGARWALA, MR ADITYA AGARWALA,MD. K ALI Advocate for the Respondent : MS. P BORTHAKUR (R-2), MS. M SAIKIA(R-2) Linked Case : ELIUS AHMED Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS HIMANGSHU BHUYAN AND ANR (F) ------------ Advocate for : MR. A R AGARWALA Advocate for : appearing for HIMANGSHU BHUYAN AND ANR (F) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 28.05.2025 Heard Mr. A.R. Agarwala, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mrs. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 47 days in preferring the connected civil revision petition against the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Barpeta in MAC Case No. 37/2024. As per office note dated 03.05.2025, notice has been duly served to the respondent No. 1 however, none has represented today. Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay occurred in filing the connected petition is not intentional. He further submits that detailed ground of delay has been explained in the petition. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/3 parties. The delay has been satisfactorily explained by the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 did not raise any objection against the prayer of the applicant. Considering all, the delay of 47 days is condoned. The Registry is directed to do the needful and shall register the connected appeal and list it in admission column. With the above observation, I/A stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant