Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20876 (GAU)

RANJIT NARZARY AND 2 ORS v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND 2 ORS

I.A.(Civil)/3638/2024 · 2025-04-29

Budi Habung

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010243242024 2025:GAU-AS:5246 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3638/2024 RANJIT NARZARY AND 2 ORS S/O LATE RENJEN NARZARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANIBHUR, PO BENGTOL, PS RUNIKHATA, DIST CHIRANG, ASSAM 2: PUNISOR NARZARY S/O LATE RENJEN NARZARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANIBHUR PO BENGTOL PS RUNIKHATA DIST CHIRANG ASSAM 3: THARALI NARZARY @ SONTOLY D/O LATE RENJEN NARZARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANIBHUR PO BENGTOL PS RUNIKHATA DIST CHIRANG ASSA VERSUS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND 2 ORS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BONGAIGAON DIVISION, CHAPAGURI ROAD, DIST BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 783394 2:CHRISTINE BORGOYARY W/O BIPUL NARZARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ANTHAIBARI Page No.# 2/3 PO BENGTOL PS RUNIKHATA DIST CHIRANG ASSAM 783394 3:BIPUL NARZARY S/O SOCHIN NARZARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ANTHAIBARI PO BENGTOL PS RUNIKHATA DIST CHIRANG ASSAM 78339 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MR. A K DAS,MS. U NANDA,MS. J GHOSH,MS A BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date :30.04.2025 Heard Ms. KLR Yanthan, learned counsel for the applicant. The Office Note dated 27.02.2025 reflects that notice upon the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 have been delivered through the addressees on 17.01.2025, 13.01.2025 & 13.01.2025 respectively. In view of the above, services in respect of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is deemed to be complete. However, none appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Page No.# 3/3 In view of the above, it appears that the respondents have no objection with regard the prayer made in the petition. This is an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condoning the delay of 106 days in filing the connected appeal. The grounds for delay in filing the connected appeal have been explained at paragraph No.3 of the delay condonation petition. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the statements made in para 3 of the application seeking condonation of delay, this court is of the view that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in not preferring the connected appeal within the stipulated time. In view of the above, the delay of 106 days is condoned. With the above, the I.A stands disposed of. Registry to register the connected appeal and list the same for admission hearing. JUDGE Comparing Assistant