Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20049 (GAU)

UNION OF INDIA v. ON THE DEATH OF RESPONDENT SUHASH DAS, HIS LEGAL HEIRS TO BE IMPLEADED AS

I.A.(Civil)/3832/2024 · 2025-02-18

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010222512024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3832/2024 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N F RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11, ASSAM VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF RESPONDENT SUHASH DAS, HIS LEGAL HEIRS TO BE IMPLEADED AS SMT. SHILA DAS, W/O LATE SUBHASH DAS, R/O VILL-BILPATHAR, PO- NAOJAN, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM,PIN 785601 2:SRI SOURAV DAS S/O LATE SUBHASH DAS R/O VILL-BILPATHAR PO- NAOJAN DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN 785601. 3:SRI GAURAV DAS S/O LATE SUBHASH DAS R/O VILL-BILPATHAR PO- NAOJAN DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN 785601. 4:SMTI PREETI DAS D/O LATE SUBHASH DAS Page No.# 2/3 R/O VILL-BILPATHAR PO- NAOJAN DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN 785601 Advocate for the Petitioner : GAUTAM GOSWAMI, Advocate for the Respondent : MR S ROY, Linked Case : MFA/80/2012 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N F RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 ASSAM VERSUS SUBHASH DAS S/O- LATE DEBENDRA DAS VILL-BILPATHAR PO- NAOJAN DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MSB DEVI Advocate for : DR.B AHMED appearing for SUBHASH DAS BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 19.02.2025 Page No.# 3/3 Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Railway Department for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 584 days in preferring the connected interlocutory application I.A.(C) No. 1198/2024 under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside abatement of MFA No. 80/2012 in connection with UOI-Vs- Subhash Das. It is submitted that the applicant/appellant was ignorant of the death of the respondent no.1 and the delay was not intentional. I have considered the submissions of both the parities. It appears that there was no negligence and the delay was not intentional and thereby, the delay of 584 days is condoned in filing the connected I.A.(C) No. 1198/2024 for setting aside the abatement of MFA No. 80/2012. With the above observation and direction, the interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant