Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010028332025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/424/2025 N.F. RAILWAY AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TINSUKIA DIVISION, TINSUKIA, ASSAM 2: ESTATE OFFICER N. F. RAILWAY TINSUKIA ASSA VERSUS DULAL CH. PAUL (DULU PAUL SHOP), S/O- LATE JOYGOBINDA PAUL, R/O- MISSIONPARA, TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H GUPTA, Advocate for the Respondent : MR D KALITA, MS R KOUR Linked Case : CONTAPP/0/0 N F Railways And Anr N F RAILWAYS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER TINSUKIA DIVISION TINSUKIA ASSAM VERSUS Page No.# 2/3 Dulal Ch Paul (dulu Paul Shop) DULAL CH PAUL SO LATE JOYGOBINDA PAUL RO MISSIONPARA TINSUKIA TOWN PO AND PS DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : HAREESH GUPTA Advocate for : appearing for Dulal Ch Paul (dulu Paul Shop) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 11.02.2026 Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. R. Kour, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant, N.F. Railway, represented by the Divisional Manager and the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Tinsukia, Assam; for condonation of delay of 11 days in preferring the connected Civil Revision Petition, against the impugned Judgment and Order, dated 09.02.2024, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 14/2023, by the Additional Session Judge No. 2 (FTC), Tinsukia. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to paragraph No. 2 of the application, submits that after obtaining certified copies of the impugned Judgment and Order, dated 09.02.2024, the applicants herein made internal connection with the department and subsequently, legal opinion has been received from the Central Government counsel to approach this Court, by filing Civil Revision Petition and in the process, delay of 11 days had occurred and the delay is not intentional, rather, it is circumstantial and that the applicants have a good case, which has to be heard on merit; and under such circumstances, Mr. Gupta has contended to allow this petition. Page No.# 3/3 4. Ms. Kour, learned counsel for the opposite party has however, opposed the application. According to Ms. Kour, the delay has not been sufficiently explained and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss this application. 5. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the grounds mentioned therein and it appears that the impugned Judgment and Order was passed on 09.02.2024 and the Revision Petition was preferred on 03.06.2024, and there is a delay of 11 days. 6. In view of the explanation, so forthcoming for the delay, and also taking note of the leaned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that delay of 11 days, in preferring the connected Civil Revision Petition, is sufficiently explained and accordingly, the delay of 11 days in preferring the Civil Revision Petition stands condoned. 7. In terms of the above, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. 8. In view of the order passed in this interlocutory application, the Registry shall register the Civil Revision Petition and list the matter before this Court as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant