Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020005562023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/127/2023 M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE APEEJAY HOUSE, 7TH FLOOR, BLOCK B, 5 PARK STREET, KOLKATTA 700016 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT MADHAB TOWER, THIRD FLOOR,RUKMINI GAON, G.C ROAD, GUWAHATI 06, ASSAM, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M),REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER SRI PRASANNA BORAH 2: THE LEGAL MANAGER M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD MADHAB TOWER THIRD FLOOR RUKMINI GAON G.S ROAD GUWAHATI 06 ASSA VERSUS SHRI JAHNUJEET DUTTA AND ANR. S/O SHRI PHATIC CH DUTTA,R/O VILL MOKOKCHUNG TOWN,C/O SHRI WATI ZAMIR, MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND 2:SHRI KIRAN DAS S/O SHRI ANIL DAS VILLAGE HATILUNG BANTOW P.O HATILUNG Page No.# 2/5 DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM (DRIVE CUM OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO AS-07-D / 9699 Advocate for the Petitioner : SUMI KAKATI, Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : MC(C)/1/2023 M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT APEEJAY HOUSE 7TH FLOOR 15TH PARK STREET KOLKATTA 70016 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT MADHAB TOWER THIRD FLOOR RUKMINI GAON G S ROAD GUWAHATI 06 DISTRICT KAMRUP (M) ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER SRI PRASANNA BORAH 2: M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD MADHAB TOWER THIRD FLOOR RUKMINI GAON G S ROAD GUWAHATI 06 DISTRICT KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS SHRI JAHNUJEET DUTTA AND ANR S/O SRI PHATIC CH DUTTA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MOKOKCHUNG TOWN C/O SGRI WATI JAMIR Page No.# 3/5 MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 2:SHRI KIRAN DAS S/O SHRI ANIL DAS VILLAGE HATILUNG BANTOW P.O HATILUNG DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : SUMI KAKATI Advocate for : B. N. SARMAH appearing for SHRI JAHNUJEET DUTTA AND ANR BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG O R D E R 27.01.2025 Heard Ms. Sumi Kakati, learned counsel for the applicant, appearing through VC. Also heard Mr. B.N. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. 2. The applicant filed I.A.(Civil)/13/2020 in MACAppeal/02/2020 for condonation of delay of 11 (eleven) days. However, the delay, according to the learned counsel for the respondent is 102 (one hundred two) days. The said I.A.(Civil)/13/2020 for condonation of delay was dismissed on 06.06.2023 for non- prosecution. And, in view of the order passed in I.A. (Civil)/13/2020 on 06.06.2023, the connected appeal was also dismissed. The applicant, thereafter filed I.A.(Civil)/127/2023 for condonation of delay of 99 (ninety-nine) days in filing the restoration of I.A. Page No.# 4/5 (Civil)/13/2020 in MACAppeal/02/2020. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent further submits that the said restoration petitioner has not been filed under any provision of law. In addition, he also pointed out that there is an inherent defect in the affidavit declared by the applicant at para-3, which is reproduced here below: “3. That the documents annexed to this bail application are true copies of the originals and of the copies as made available to or obtained by the petitioner and as such are believed to be true copies of the originals.” He submits that the above declaration is not connected with the application filed by the applicant. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the application. 4. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 99 (ninety-nine) days in filing the restoration petition of I.A.(Civil)/13/2020 in MACAppeal/02/2020. 5. The grounds for not preferring the connected appeal on time according to the applicant are explained in paragraph- 3 and 4, which is reproduced here below: “3. That thereafter the counsel appeared on few dates. Thereafter, due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, this Hon’ble Court was functioning with restrictions and the matter was not listed. However, the matter was listed on 10.0.2023 24.04.2023, 05.05.2023 and finally on 06.06.2023 before this Hon’ble Court, due to oversight on the part of the engaged counsel the matter was overlooked and the counsel could not appear before this Hon’ble Court, resultantly, this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 06.06.2023 was pleased to dismiss the I.A.(Civil) 13/2020 and MAC appeal no. 02/2023 for non prosecution. Page No.# 5/5 4. That it is stated that on 05.10.2023, the petitioners company received a petition of Execution case being no. 01/2023. It is only when the authorized representative of the company visited the chamber of the engaged counsel on 07.10.2023 and the engaged counsel checked the status online and could know that the matter was listed on earlier occasions and the same was dismissed for non prosecution on 06.06.2023.” 6. I have gone through the above paragraphs. Upon perusal, this Court is not at all satisfied and convinced with the explanation given in the above paragraphs for condonation of delay. Furthermore, from the records, it appears that the applicant/appellant has been very casual in their approach. The various orders of this Court reflects that even after filing the application, the applicant remained absent and on several occasions, the matter has been adjourned due to their non appearance. The casual approach is also apparent from the application as well as the affidavit declared by the applicant as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, whereby the applicant declared about the bail application in the condonation application. 7. For the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the connected restoration petition. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. I.A.(Civil)/127/2023 is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant