Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010179252025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/4024/2025 LILADHAR DAS S/O LATE MANORANJAN DAS, R/O VILL- NO. 1 GALIAHATI, MOUZA- BARPETA, P.S.- BARPETA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS SMTI RUP JYOTI DAS D/O LATE MONORANJAN DAS (W/O KHANINDRA NATH BHUYAN), R/O VILL- DAHATI, P.S.- BARPETA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, R BEGUM,MS A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. J ABBAS, SK ABDULLAH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. J. Abbas, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the applicant, namely, Liladhar Das praying for condonation of delay of 220 days in filing the collected testamentary appeal, whereby the Page No.# 2/4 applicant has impugned the judgment and order dated 01.10.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Barpeta, in Title Suit (Probate) Case No. 3/2024. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the judgment in the Title Suit (Probate) Case No. 3/2024 was delivered on 01.10.2024, however, the applicant had no knowledge about the same till 15.06.2025, when the engaged counsel for the applicant informed him about the same. Thereafter, some time was also consumed in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment. 4. He further submits that as the respondent is his own sister, hence, there was an attempt of arriving at an amicable settlement between the parties and as the talk of compromise was going on, the applicant did not make any correspondence with the engaged counsel to know about the status of the case. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer for condoning the delay on the ground that the applicant has failed to sufficiently explain the reasons for delay in filing the connected testamentary appeal. He submits that the averment made in the interlocutory application that the applicant came to know about the fate of the probate case only on 15.06.2025 is not true as the applicant himself has preferred a title suit in respect of the same subject matter before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2. The said title suit has been registered as Title Suit No. 108/2019. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that from the averment made by the applicant in the interlocutory application, it is Page No.# 3/4 apparent that he himself was negligent in not pursuing the matter as he has admitted that he did not make any correspondence with his engaged counsel. He further submits that the applicant may not be allowed to take advantage of his own negligence and, therefore, he prays for rejecting the application for condoning the delay of 220 days. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 8. Though, the applicant has pleaded that he was unaware about the date of disposal of the Title Suit (Probate) Case No. 3/2024, however, it appears that he had admittedly filed a title suit in respect of the same subject matter. Though, the plea that there was an attempt of reaching an amicable settlement between the parties has been denied by the learned counsel for the respondent, however, considering the fact that both the parties are brother and sister in relationship, the said plea cannot be totally ruled out. 9. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the Court should take a justice oriented approach and as such considering the relationship between the parties as well as grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the reasons stated in the instant interlocutory application by the applicant which has caused the delay in approaching the Court, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 220 days in approaching the Court in filing the connected testamentary appeal. However, considering the circumstances as discussed in the foregoing paragraph, a cost of Rs 5,000/- is imposed on the applicant as a condition for condonation of delay. 10. Accordingly, the delay of 220 days in filing the connected appeal is Page No.# 4/4 hereby condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the applicant to the respondent. 11. The cost shall be deposited by the applicant before the Registry of this Court within seven days from the date of this order. 12. Thereafter, on such deposit of cost, same shall be disbursed to the respondent by the Registry and the connected testamentary appeal shall be registered and list it for admission. 13. This interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant