Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010089092025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/333/2025 THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (FFR) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NDCC II BUILDING JAI SINGH ROAD NEW DELHI 2: THE SECRETARY (FFR) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NDCC II BUILDING JAI SINGH ROAD NEW DELHI 3: THE JOINT SECRETARY BM DIVISION MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 4: THE JOINT SECRETARY BM II DIVISION MHA NDCC II BUILDING NEW DELHI VERSUS MANTRI TEA COMPANY PVT LTD AND ORS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CONTINENTAL CHAMBERS 4TH FLOOR 15A HEMANTA BASU SARANI KOLKATA WEST BENGAL REPRENTED BY KAMLESH SINGH RESIDENT/DIRECTOR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE RAM NARAIN SINGH Page No.# 2/5 RESIDENT OF GOVINDA BHAWAN NATIONAL HIGHWAY ROAD SILCHAR PO AND PS SILCHAR DIST CACHAR ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI 781032 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ ASSAM 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY TO THE GOVT REVENUE DEPARTMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER PATHERKANDI PO AND PS PATHARKANDI DIST KARIMGANJ 6:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER PATHERKANDI PO AND PS PATHARKANDI KARIMGANJ ------------ Advocate for : MR H GUPTA Advocate for : MR G N SAHEWALLA appearing for MANTRI TEA COMPANY PVT LTD AND ORS - B e f o r e - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan O R D E R 27.06.2025 Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Agarwal, learned counsel Page No.# 3/5 for the opposite parties. 2. This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is preferred by the applicants for condoning the delay of 56 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2024, in Title Suit No. 10/2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the delay of 56 days in filing the connected appeal is duly explained on day to day basis in paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the application, and that the pronouncement of the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2024, was informed to the Office of the applicants by the Government pleader in his letter dated 07.06.2024, with his opinion and thereafter, vide O.M. dated 11.06.2024, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (BM Division) sent legal opinion of the Government pleader to the Director (BM), Ministry of External Affairs with a copy to the Government pleader, for taking necessary action, and in that process, delay of 5 days occurred. Mr. Gupta also submits that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (FFR Division), vide letter dated 26.06.2024, reverted the matter back stating that the said subject matter is dealt with the BM-I Division of that Ministry and thereafter, requested to take appropriate action and in the said process, 15 days elapsed, and thereafter, a meeting was proposed with the stakeholders to discuss the matter on 19.07.2024, and in the said process, 23 days elapsed. Mr. Gupta further submits that thereafter, the Ministry of Home Affairs (BM-II Division), vide O.M. dated 22.07.2024, referred the matter to JS, BM Division, Ministry of External Affairs and JS (BM-I), Ministry of Home Affairs, stating that the subject matter is concerned with BM Division of Ministry of External Affairs and BM-I Division, and thereafter, forwarded a copy of the judgment and decree, with advice to file appeal, before the High Court, Page No.# 4/5 and thereafter, the case file was received by HQ DG BSF routed thorough BM Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide O.M. dated 09.08.2024, and certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2024, was forwarded by Ministry of Home Affairs (BM-I Division) to Ops Dte, HQ DG BSF, vide UO Note No. 02/25/2017-R&SO, dated 09.08.2024, and in the said process, 18 days elapsed. Mr. Mr. Gupta also submits that the delay is not deliberate, but bona fide one, and that the applicants have arguable point to be heard on merit in the appeal, and therefore, it is contended to condone the same. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently opposed the application. He submits that the delay is primarily occurred due to administrative reason, which is not a ‘sufficient ground’ as contemplation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In support of his submission, Mr. Sahewalla has referred to two decisions of this Court in the cases of Union of India and Ors. vs. Wood Crafts Products Ltd. and Anr., reported in 2001 (1) GLT 34, and Union of India and Ors. vs. Sh. H. Thaumvela, reported in 2003 (2) GLT 210, and that since the delay has not been explained properly, Mr. Sahewalla has contended to dismiss the application. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record, and also perused the decisions referred by Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties. 6. It appears that in paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the application, the applicants have explained the delay on day to day basis, with supporting documents, vide Annexure-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and having gone through the same carefully, and also considering the submission of Mr. Gupta, learned Page No.# 5/5 counsel applicants, this Court is of the view that the delay has sufficiently been explained. 7. Though, Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the application referring to two decisions of this Court and yet there is no quarrel at the bar about the proposition of law laid down in the aforementioned decisions, but in the given facts and circumstances on the record, and also in view of the explanation, so forthcoming for the delay, this Court is of the view that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases would not be applicable in all force to facts of the present application. 8. Accordingly, the delay of 56 days in preferring the connected appeal stands condoned. 9. In view of the order passed today in I.A.(Civil)/333/2025, now the Registry shall proceed to register the connected appeal and thereafter, list the same before this Court as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant