Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020001442025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/35/2025 THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT DARE HOUSE 2ND FLOOR NO.2 N.S.C BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU AND DIVISIONAL OFFICES IN SEVERAL PLACES, INCLUDING AT NORTH EAST STATES VERSUS SHRI RAJANI BARUAH AND 3 ORS S/O LT. TANURAM BARUAH, PERMANENT R/O VILLAGE HORIDAH, P.O BONPURI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM PRESENT ADDRESS P.R HILLBAZAR AREA KOHIMA NAGALAND 2:SHRI SURAJ BARUAH S/O LT. G BARUAH R/O C/O A.Z LASKAR H/NO.15 B/L ABAHAN PATH MILAMJYOTI PATH KAMRUP GUWAHATI 781038 3:M/S DIWASHI PHOOKAN C/O DIWASHI PHOOKAM H/NO. 62 BONGOAN BELTOLA GUWAHATI 781028 4:MD. WAHIDUL ALAM Page No.# 2/6 S/O MD HABIBUR REHMAN R/O VILLAGE GOTLONG P.O KALIABHOMR P.S TEZPUR DISTRICT SOITPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : JAMES NEWMAI, Advocate for the Respondent : B. N. SARMAH, IMTIWAPANG,NONGOSA BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 10.03.2026 The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act R/W Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the application/Insurance Company praying for condonation of delay of 564 days in filing the Restoration Petition, I.A.(Civil)/36/2025, to restore the MAC Appeal 2/2019, which was dismissed for default by an Order of this Court dated 08.08.2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, Mr. Taka Kichu. Also heard Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. 3. The main grounds taken by the applicant is that the dismissal Order dated 08.08.2023 was not known to the applicant as the earlier counsel had withdrawn the Vakalatnama without prior notice to the applicant/appellant. The applicant/appellant was not aware of the notice sent by the Registry of this Court and as such after a long lapse it was made known to the applicant that the appeal had been dismissed on Page No.# 3/6 default. Immediately after the applicant came to know of the dismissal of the appeal, the panel advocate was advised to get a certified copy of the Order dated 08.08.2023, which was received by the Branch Office at Jorhat only on 04.12.2023, and the same was sent and received by the Guwahati Regional Office on 15.12.2023. The concerned Legal Manager was on an official tour at Nagaon from 14.12.2023 to 31.12.2023 and only after his return the dismissal order was intimated to the Zonal Office at Kolkatta from the Guwahati Regional Branch on 05.01.2024. It is further stated that the Zonal Office, Kolkatta transmitted the case file to the Head Office on 08.01.2024 and the same was received on 11.01.2024. After receiving the same an e-mail was sent to the engaged panel advocate at Kohima on 20.01.2024. The panel advocate received the instructions; however, the same could not be acted upon immediately as the panel advocate was on maternity leave till 20.06.2024. Thereafter, she got some injuries and was physically indisposed till 25.10.2024. 4. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the panel advocate has recovered from her injuries but she was not in a position to draft the necessary application and, therefore, she requested another panel advocate to draft and file the same on 27.10.2024. However, the other panel advocate expressed her inability to file the same on 21.01.2025. 5. Thereafter, the panel advocate requested the present counsel to file the same on 23.01.2025 through a phone call but the present counsel was out of station and decided to file the same after he returned from his journey on 02.02.2025. Thereafter the panel advocate met the present Page No.# 4/6 advocate on 06.02.2025 and handed over the file, however, the present counsel also went out of station for medical purpose and returned only on 28.02.2025 and thereafter the present application could be filed only on 26.03.2025, thereby causing a delay of 564 days. 6. Learned counsel submits that the delay of 564 days was not caused due to the negligence on the part of the applicant but it was on account of circumstances beyond the control of the applicant and, therefore, prays that the delay of 564 days may be condoned and the restoration application may be taken up for consideration by this Court. 7. The learned counsel, Mr. B.N. Sarma appearing for the respondent/claimant has filed his objections and submits that the actual delay is 597 days and not 564 days and that the 33 days of delay has been unaccounted for. The learned counsel further submits that the previous orders passed by this Court in MACApp./2/2019 has been suppressed by the applicant and all the correspondence from the panel advocate to the applicant/company has also not been enclosed by the applicant in the petition. It is also submitted that the present application is also not maintainable inasmuch as the applicant could have only filed for readmission of the appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has drawn the attention of this Court to the various orders passed by this Court in MACApp./2/2019 which are enclosed as Annexures F to L in the objection filed by the claimant/respondent. In view of the above, the learned counsel submits that the applicant has not been able to show any sufficient cause for filing the restoration application and that the applicant/appellant has not been Page No.# 5/6 pursuing the appeal with sincerity and, therefore, prays that the present application may be dismissed. 8. The Court has considered the submission of the learned counsels and has also gone through the pleadings as well as the Annexures enclosed therein. A perusal of the orders passed by this Court in MACApp./2/2019 has also been noted. In the Orders dated 10.04.2023, 17.04.2023, 02.05.2023, 08.05.2023, 05.06.2023, 27.06.2023 and finally 08.08.2023, it is seen that the appellant had been given ample opportunity by this Court. The Court had also allowed the panel advocate, who was engaged earlier to seek instructions as to whether the applicant/appellant would like to pursue the appeal further. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant had also brought to the notice of this Court all the correspondence made to the applicant/appellant/Company showing that no response had been forthcoming from the applicant/Company. Due to the non cooperation by the applicant/appellant, the previous counsel, who was appearing for the applicant had also withdrawn his Vakalatnama. Thereafter, the Registry of this Court sent a notice to the applicant/appellant enclosing the Order of this Court. However, none appeared for the applicant/appellant even after the notice was sent. By Order dated 27.06.2023, this Court had also observed that the notice sent by the Registry had been delivered to the applicant on 08.05.2023. Inspite of receiving the notice and inspite of the opportunities given to the applicant, this Court on 08.08.2023 observed that the applicant/appellant had failed to be present in the Court inspite of several opportunities and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed on default for non appearance on 08.08.2023. Page No.# 6/6 9. A perusal of the several orders passed by this Court goes to show that the applicant/appellant has not been diligent in pursuing the appeal and the behavior of the applicant/appellant shows that there was willful negligence on the part of the applicant/appellant in pursuing the appeal, even in the present applicant, filed for condonation of delay this Court has seen that no sufficient cause has been shown except for routing of files from one office to another. The applicant has not been diligent at all in pursuing the appeal. 10. In view of the above observations, the present application is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant