Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010249722023 2025:GAU-AS:1879 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3810/2023 KALYANI PAUL W/O MRINAL KANTI PAUL, RESIDENT OF EAST GOTANAGAR, MALIGAON, LAWFUL ATTORNEY OF SRI NIRMAL BANIK, SON OF LATE GANESH CH. BANIK, RESIDENT OF NO. GATE NO. 1 MALIGAON, GUWAHATI VERSUS KISHORE BANIK AND 4 ORS. S/O LATE AMULYA BANIK RESIDENT OF MALIGAON, GATE NO. 1, GUWAHATI 11, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 2:SRI BISWAJIT BANIK S/O LATE AMULYA BANIK RESIDENT OF MALIGAON GATE NO. 1 GUWAHATI 11 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 3:SRI ARUN BANIK S/O LATE AMULYA BANIK RESIDENT OF MALIGAON GATE NO. 1 GUWAHATI 11 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 4:TARUN BANIK S/O LATE AMULYA BANIK RESIDENT OF MALIGAON GATE NO. 1 GUWAHATI 11 Page No.# 2/4 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 5:THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BBY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B PATHAK, MR. R BHAGAWATI,MR. D K SHARMA,MS M TIWARI,MR B HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, G M D A, Linked Case : KALYANI PAUL VERSUS KISHORE BANIK AND 4 ORS. E ------------ Advocate for : MR B PATHAK Advocate for : appearing for KISHORE BANIK AND 4 ORS. E BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 21.02.2025 Heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMDA, for the respondent no.5. Page No.# 3/4 Office note dated 07.10.2024, reflects that the services in respect of respondent nos. 1 to 4 is completed but till date, no vakalatanama has been filed representing the respondent nos. 1,2,3 and 4. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay of 44 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal against the judgment order and decree dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) in Title Appeal No. 47/2016. It is submitted by Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that there was some delay in collecting the documents for preparation of the Regular Second Appeal and after collecting of those certified copies, the appellant has preferred the Regular Second Appeal with 44 days delay. However, there was no wilful negligence of latches on the part of the applicant/appellant in preferring the appeal with the 44 days delay. Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMDA for the respondent no.5 also raised no objection and submitted that he has no objection if the delay of 44 days is condoned. In view of above, the delay of 44 days in preferring the connected Regular Second Appeal is hereby condoned. Registry is directed to register the main appeal and list the matter accordingly. With the above observation and direction, the present interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant