Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020003272025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/91/2025 ROYAL SUNDARAM G.I.C. LTD - HAVING ITS EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE AT TOWER 2, UNIT NO. T 2- 2A, MILLENIUM CITY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK, PLOT NO. DN-62 SECTOR V, SALT LAKE, BIDHAN NAGAR, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL, 700091 AND REGIONAL AND DIVISIONAL OFFICES IN SEVERAL PLACES VERSUS SMT. BHARATI BHUYAN KONWAR AND 2 ORS W/O LATE RAGHU KONWAR R/O NEW SONOWAL, NAGAJANGKA MARIANI, P.S. MARIANI DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM-785634 2:MASTER HEDARTO S/O LATE RAGHU KONWAR R/O NEW SONOWAL NAGAJANGKA MARIANI P.S. MARIANI DIST- JORHAT ASSAM-785634 3:SHRI TITLESWAR KARMAKAR S/O LATE MODON KARMAKAR R/O VILLAGE HOLONGURI P.O. NAGACHARI DIST- JORHJAT ASSAM-785635 (OWNER OF MARUTI ECCO B/R NO. AS-03-W-56541 Advocate for the Petitioner : VIKRAMJEET DEVNATH, Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/90/2025 ROYAL SUNDARAM G.I.C. LTD HAVING ITS EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE AT TOWER 2 UNIT NO. T 2- 2A MILLENIUM CITY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK PLOT NO. DN-62 SECTOR V SALT LAKE BIDHAN NAGAR NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 700091 AND REGIONAL AND DIVISIONAL OFFICES IN SEVERAL PLACES VERSUS SMT. BHARATI BHUYAN KONWAR AND 2 ORS W/O LATE RAGHU KONWAR R/O NEW SONOWAL NAGAJANGKA MARIANI P.S. MARIANI DIST- JORHAT ASSAM-785634 2:MASTER HEDARTO S/O LATE RAGHU KONWAR R/O NEW SONOWAL NAGAJANGKA MARIANI P.S. MARIANI DIST- JORHAT ASSAM-785634 3:SHRI TITLESWAR KARMAKAR S/O LATE MODON KARMAKAR R/O VILLAGE HOLONGURI P.O. NAGACHARI DIST- JORHJAT ASSAM-785635 (OWNER OF MARUTI ECCO B/R NO. AS-03-W-56541) ------------ Advocate for : VIKRAMJEET DEVNATH Advocate for : TONGPOK PONGENER appearing for SMT. BHARATI BHUYAN Page No.# 3/4 KONWAR AND 2 ORS BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 28.10.2025 Heard Mr. Vikramjeet Devnath, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. Tongpok Pongena, learned counsel, representing the opposite party nos. 1 & 2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 107 (One hundred seven) days in filing the connected Interlocutory application No. 90/2025, recalling the dismissal order dated 28.01.2025 and to restore the MAC Appeal No. 08/2024 for hearing. 3. Mr. V. Devnath, learned counsel submits that the dismissal of the connected appeal on 28.01.2025 was the result of an unintentional oversight on the part of the applicant’s counsel who failed to notice the listing of the matter in the cause-list on the particular date. He submits that it was only upon subsequent review of the case status online that the applicant’s counsel came to know about the dismissal of the connected MAC Appeal. Thereafter, the applicant’s counsel applied for the certified copy of the dismissal order dated 28.01.2025 and the instant application was filed finally on 18.06.2025, thereby, causing a delay of 107 days in filing the application. 4. Notice was issued in the instant Interlocutory application and the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 had already filed their objection to the application praying for condonation of delay. Page No.# 4/4 5. From the records, it is found that as per the notice upon the opposite party no. 3 is concerned, a Paper-News publication has already been done by the applicant and an affidavit to that effect has already been filed. In view of the aforesaid, service upon the opposite party no. 3 is deemed to be completed. 6. Mr. Tongpok Pongena, learned counsel submits that there is no explanation of delay of 107 days in the instant application that has been filed by the applicant, therefore, he prays that the delay should not be condoned. 7. After looking into the facts of the matter in entirety and taking into consideration of the fact that there is an admission on the part of the counsel appearing for the applicant that it was due to his unintentional oversight, he could not appear in the Court on the particular date when the MAC Appeal was dismissed for non-appearance, this Court is of the view that the instant application merits interference by this Court and therefore, this Court allows the prayer of condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the instant application. 8. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory application is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant