Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010252012023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3350/2023 HARI PRASAD AGARWALLA and 3 ORS S/O LATE MEGH RAJ AGARWALLA, RESIDENT OF A.T. ROAD, WARD NO. 4, JORHAT TOWN, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM. 2: SMT. BHAGAWATI DEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE MEGH RAJ AGARWALLA RESIDENT OF A.T. ROAD WARD NO. 4 JORHAT TOWN DIST. JORHAT ASSAM 3: SMT. CHITRA DEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE MEGH RAJ AGARWALLA RESIDENT OF A.T. ROAD WARD NO. 4 JORHAT TOWN DIST. JORHAT ASSAM 4: SMT. NEEMA DEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE MEGH RAJ AGARWALLA RESIDENT OF A.T. ROAD WARD NO. 4 JORHAT TOWN DIST. JORHAT ASSA VERSUS SMT. DEBIRA RAHMAN and ORS Page No.# 2/4 D/O LATE FAIZUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF A.T. ROAD, WARD NO. 4, JORHAT TOWN, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM 2:SMT. DELILA BEGUM D/O LATE FAIZUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF A.T. ROAD WARD NO. 4 JORHAT TOWN DIST. JORHAT ASSAM 3:ON THE DEATH OF LATE BHAGIRATH KARNANI HIS LEGAL HEIRS SRI MURLIDHAR KARNANI S/O LATE BHAGIRATH KARNANI C/O KARNANI TRADING CO. A.T. ROAD WARD NO. 4 JORHAT TOWN DIST. JORHAT ASSAM 4:SRI OM PRAKASH KARNANI S/O LATE BHAGIRATH KARNANI C/O KARNANI TRADING CO. A.T. ROAD WARD NO. 4 JORHAT TOWN DIST. JORHAT ASSAM 5:SMTI MANASI AGARWAL W/O SRI SHRI RAJESH AGARWAL C/O KARNANI TRADING CO. A.T. ROAD WARD NO. 4 JORHAT TOWN DIST. JORHAT ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MD ASLAM,MR H K SARMA,MR M SAHEWALLA,,,, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R C SANCHETI (R-3,4), MR. A SANCHETI (R-3,4),MR S SANCHETI (R-3,4) Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 16.06.2025 Heard Ms. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. S. Sancheti, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3(a) and 3(b). 2. Office note dated 06.06.2025, indicates that service upon the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is complete, but the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained unrepresented today. 3. This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 418 days in preferring the substitution petition for impleadment of the legal heirs of respondent No. 3. 4. Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were informed about the demise of the respondent No. 3 and his wife on 05.10.2023, and in the meantime, delay of 418 days occurred, and that the same is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial, and as such, it is contended to condone the same. 5. Mr. Sancheti, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3(a) and 3(b) submits that he has no objection in the event of condoning the aforementioned delay. 6. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, especially the explanation so forthcoming for the delay, this Court is of the view that the delay stands sufficiently explained, and accordingly, the same stands condoned. Page No.# 4/4 7. In terms of above this I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant