Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010277912024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/508/2025 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT BHANGAGARH, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-781005 REP. BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI ASSAM. VERSUS NAJIMA BEGUM AND 4 ORS W/O. LT. MUSTAFA ALI 2:NASIR UDDIN S/O. LT. MUSTAFA ALI 3:NAJIRUL ALI W/O. LT. MUSTAFA ALI NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE THE SONS OF LT. MUSTUFA ALI BOTH ARE BEING MINOR REP. BY THEIR MOTHER THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 4:FAJAR BANU W/O. ABDUL SALAM 5:ABDUL SALAM S/O. LT. MANURUDDIN ALL ARE R/O. BORBHETI P/S. NAGAON SADAR DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782122 Page No.# 2/4 6:ABUL HUSSAIN S/O. MD. TAFAZUL HOQUE P/O. PANIGAON KACHALUKHOWA P/S. NAGAON SADAR DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. S ROY, MS F N ZAMAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M TALUKDAR (1 TO 4), Linked Case : NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VERSUS NAJIMA BEGUM AND 4 ORS A ------------ Advocate for : MRS. S ROY Advocate for : appearing for NAJIMA BEGUM AND 4 ORS A BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 26.05.2025 Heard Ms. U. Roy, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1-4. Page No.# 3/4 2. The Office Note dated 16.05.2025 reflects that the notice upon the respondent no.5 couldn’t be served since deceased and the notice upon the respondent no.6 is duly served. 3. In view of the above, Ms. U. Roy, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent no.5 is not a necessary party, therefore, his name may be struck off from the Cause Title. 4. The prayer is allowed. 5. Let the name of respondent no.5, be struck off from the Cause Title at the risk of the applicant. 6. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 7(seven) days in filing the connected appeal. 7. The ground for delay in filing the connected appeal is explained in paragraph 4 of the delay condonation petition. 8. On perusal of the explanation given in the said paragraph, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the connected appeal within a stipulated time. 9. Moreover Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1-4 has no objection on condoning the delay. 10. In view of the above, the delay of 7(seven) days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned. 11. With the above, this I.A. is allowed and disposed of. 12. The Registry is directed to register the appeal and list it by reflecting the name of Mr. M. Talukdar, as the learned counsel for the Page No.# 4/4 respondent nos. 1-4. JUDGE Comparing Assistant