Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010215912023 2025:GAU-AS:12744 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2893/2023 ABDUL HAI MAZARBHUIYA AND ANR S/O LATE MAHMUD ALI MAZARBHUIYA, R/O VILL-BARBOND PART-I, P.O.- BARBOND, P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI, PIN-788164 2: LAILA BEGUM MAZARBHUIYA W/O ABDUL HAI MAZARBHUIYA R/O VILL-BARBOND PART-I P.O.-BARBOND P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI PIN-78816 VERSUS THE CHIEF MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD AND 3 ORS NEAR BADARPUR, P.O.-BADARPUR GHAT, P.S.-BADARPUR, DIST- KARIMGANJ, PIN-788802 2:THE MANAGER POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. NEAR BADARPUR P.O.-BADARPUR GHAT P.S.-BADARPUR DIST-KARIMGANJ PIN-788802 3:JUNIOR ENGINEER 400 K.V. D/C CHURAIBARI SILCHAR KHLICHRIAL SECTION OF PALATANA SILCHAR BONGAIGAON TRANSMISSION LINE BADARPUR P.O.-BADARPUR GHAT P.S.-BADARPUR DIST- KARIMGANJ Page No.# 2/5 PIN-788802 4:NORTH EAST TRANSMISSION CO. LTD. (NETC) REPRESENTED BY ENGINE NETC SAI SHIVA RESIDIARY NEAR C.R. AVENUE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR PIN-78801 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T A CHOUDHURY, MR. R SARMA,MR. A Y CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, POWER GRID, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 17-09-2025 Heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. N.C. Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. J. Baishya, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 92 days in preferring the connected revision petition against the interim order dated 18.01.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi in Misc. (P.G) Case No. 20/2017 filed u/s 10 & 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 and read with Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that the connected revision petition has been preferred by the present petitioner as aggrieved by the award given by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 6,86,668/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition. Further, he submitted that after getting the certified copy of the Page No.# 3/5 judgment which was obtained on 14.03.2023, he immediately consulted with the Advocate who was the counsel and sought legal advice for approaching the higher authority. The counsel advised that there was 3 months time to file a revision petition before the Hon’ble High Court and thereafter the petitioner again approached the learned counsel who was conducting the case in the Trial Court below for referring to any Advocate from the High Court. But, as he was not in a position to approach any of the Advocates of the High Court, subsequently the petitioner came to Guwahati along with his friend only on 7th June, 2023 and could meet the Advocate which was referred by the earlier counsel. But, at that time the counsel was also out of station for which he had to return back to his residence again. Subsequently in the last week of June, 2023 he again approached the counsel and thereafter he took some more time in preferring and filing the connected revision petition and thus there was delay of 92 days in preferring the connected revision petition. He further submitted that there was no laches and negligence on the part of the present petitioner to file the revision petition within the period of limitation. But, being a layman and seeking advice from his engaged counsel as well as the time taken by the Advocate in preferring the revision petition, it took some time and hence the petitioner could be filed only after a delay of 92 days. 4. Mr. Sharma further submitted that if the petitioner is not provided with a chance to challenge the judgment & award passed by the learned Trial Court below, prejudice will be caused to the present petitioner. However, no prejudice will be caused to the other side as they will get ample opportunity to contest the revision petition. 5. Mr. Sharma further relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2023) 18 SCC 764 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has expressed the view Page No.# 4/5 that legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in order to enable the courts to do the substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on ‘merits’. Further, it is observed that the explanation of every day’s delay does not mean for pedantic approach should be made and the doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and in pragmatic manner. 6. Mr. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted in this regard that the connected revision petition which is filed against the order of learned Additional District Judge is not maintainable in its present form and further it is submitted that from the statement made by the petitioner it reveals that they applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 21.01.2023 and it was ready for delivery on 03.03.2023 and the petitioner accepted the same on 14.03.2023. But, even after receipt of the certified copy on 14.03.2023 there was a delay of 92 days in instituting the connected revision petition and approaching the legal practitioner/ engaged counsel etc. are the internal affairs and no circumstances can be terms as ‘sufficient cause’ and accordingly there is no proper explanation of delay in the petition itself to condone the delay of 92 days in preferring the connected revision petition. Mr. Das accordingly raised objection and submitted that the petition may not be allowed at this stage and that apart the revision petition is also not maintainable against the judgment & award as preferred. 7. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and it is an admitted fact that the connected revision petition is filed by delay of 92 days and at the same time it is also an admitted fact that the certified copy of the judgment & award was received by the petitioner on 14.03.2023. However, there are sufficient explanation are Page No.# 5/5 made by the present petitioner in regards to delay of 92 days in preferring the connected revision petition. It also cannot be denied that approaching an Advocate and receiving proper advice etc. and for preparing a revision petition may take some time for the concerned Advocate and there is no such negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing delay of 92 days in preferring the revision petition. More so, the delay is also explained in the petition itself. 8. Further the issue of maintainability may be heard under the revision petition, if it is admitted for hearing. 9. So considering all these aspects of this case and in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court where it has been expressed that for a substantial justice the delay may be condoned considering the grounds and reasons for delay, if it can be considered under ‘sufficient cause’ for delay. 10. In view of above, I find that the delay of 92 days can be condoned and accordingly the present petition is allowed condoning the delay of 92 days in preferring the connected revision petition and the respondent may raise the issue of maintainability in the revision petition itself. 11. Registry will list the connected revision after being registered and numbered. JUDGE Comparing Assistant