Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010258612023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3422/2023 ON THE DEATH OF SUBODH CHOUDHURY HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY 1.1: SMT. SEEMA CHOUDHURY W/O LATE SUBODH CHOUDHURY R/O HOUSE NO. 23 COLONY ROAD HATIGARH CHARIALI P.S. GEETANAGAR GUWAHATI-21 DIST.KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.2: MS. SUNITA CHOUDHURY D/O LATE SUBODH CHOUDHURY R/O HOUSE NO. 23 COLONY ROAD HATIGARH CHARIALI P.S. GEETANAGAR GUWAHATI-21 DIST.KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.3: SRI SANJAY CHOUDHURY S/O LATE SUBODH CHOUDHURY R/O HOUSE NO. 23 COLONY ROAD HATIGARH CHARIALI P.S. GEETANAGAR GUWAHATI-21 DIST.KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.4: MS. SMITHA CHOUDHURY Page No.# 2/3 D/O LATE SUBODH CHOUDHURY R/O HOUSE NO. 23 COLONY ROAD HATIGARH CHARIALI P.S. GEETANAGAR GUWAHATI-21 DIST.KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.5: SRI SAMBHU CHOUDHURY S/O LATE SUBODH CHOUDHURY R/O HOUSE NO. 23 COLONY ROAD HATIGARH CHARIALI P.S. GEETANAGAR GUWAHATI-21 DIST.KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS SRI NRIPEN DEKA, S/O LATE KARUNA KANTA DEKA, R/O HOUSE NO. 9, BAGHARBORI BIDYA NAGAR, P.S. NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-37, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SHEELADITYA, MR D MAZUMDER (P-1.2 TO 1.5),MR. S SAHU (P-1.2 TO 1.5),MS D DEVI (P-1.2 TO 1.5),MS. S NATH (P-1.2 TO 1.5) Advocate for the Respondent : MR. H K DEKA, MR A BHATRA,MR A DEKA,N CHAUDHURY,MR. M DAS,MR. B D DEKA BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 26.06.2025 Heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicants and also heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is preferred by Page No.# 3/3 the applicants for condonation of delay of 127 days in preferring the restoration application of RFA No.59/2015. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicants submits that RFA No.59/2015 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.03.2023 and that the earlier conducting counsel of the applicants suffered demise, for which the application could not be filed in time and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party submits that he has no objection. Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this interlocutory application stands allowed by condoning the delay of 127 days, as the aforesaid delay is sufficiently explained in this application. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE