Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010219132017 2025:GAU-AS:2528 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/203/2017 SMT. BINA CHOUDHURY and 4 ORS. W/O. LT. GIRIJANANDA CHOUDHURY, 2: SRI DEBANANDA CHOUDHURY 3: SRI ARUPANAND_A CHOUDHURY 4: SRI BIJOYANANDA CHOUDHURY @ DUDUL CHOUDHURY NOS. 2 3 AND 4 ARE THE SONS OF LT. GIRIJANANDA CHOUDHURY. NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF J.C. DAS ROAD PANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 VERSUS CHALIHA WAREHOUSING CO. PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ANANDA KUTIR CAMPUS, PINAKI PATH, ZOO NARENGI ROAD, ERSTWHILE ANANDA KUTIR ROAD, SARUMATARIA, GUWAHATI-781003, AND ANOTHER OFFICE AT THE PREMISES OF M/S CHALIHA WAREHOUSING COMPANY PVT. LTD., G.S. ROAD, SARUMATARIA, GUWAHATI. REPRSENTED BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTOR, SMTI. RUBY HAZARIKA. Page No.# 2/3 For the Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Dubey, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 07.03.2025 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 518 days in filing the accompanying revision application against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No. 313/2005. 2. This Court has duly perused the application and from the contents of paragraph Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, it is seen that it was on account of the fault of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had no knowledge about the judgment and decree passed on 13.07.2015. It is under such circumstances, the delay has occurred. 3. It is seen that the respondent herein is being represented by Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel. This Court had put a specific question upon him, as to whether, any execution proceedings have been filed. He submitted that there has been no execution application filed. 4. Taking into account that the decree which has been passed in the year 2015, there is no execution being filed till date even after a passage of almost a decade, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for condoning the delay in filing the accompanying revision application. Page No.# 3/3 Accordingly, delay is condoned. 5. The Registry is to register the accompanying revision application and list it for Motion next week. 6. With the above observations and directions, the I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant