CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. CHAKRA BAHADUR DORJEE @ MANUJ AND 2 ORS
I.A.(Civil)/1922/2023 · 2025-10-26
Budi Habung
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24692 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24692 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010040312023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1922/2023 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT DARE HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, NO. 2 N.S.C. BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI- 600001 AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT AASTHA PLAZA, 4TH FLOOR, OPP. TO S.B. DEORAH COLLEGE, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI VERSUS CHAKRA BAHADUR DORJEE @ MANUJ AND 2 ORS S/O SRI PUSPA BAHADUR DORJEE, R/O VILL-MERAGURIA GAON, P.O. AND P.S.-LALUK, DIST-LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787160. (CLAIMANT) 2:MOUSAM CHANGKAKOTI S/O SRI BUDHESWAR GOGOI R/O H/N-2 NATUN PATH HATIGAON P.O.-CHARIALI SUB OFFICE P.S.-HATIGAON DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781038 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AR-01-G-3988 (BUS)) 3:HABIZUDDIN AHMED S/O ABDUL HANIF ALI C/O MR B. MALLICK H/N-12 WARD NO. 4 GOPINATH NAGAR P.O. AND P.S.-DISPUR DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781016. (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AR-01-G-3988 (BUS) Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B CHETRI,
Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
ORDER Date : 27.10.2025 Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B. Chetri,
learned counsel for the respondents. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 278 days in preferring the connected substitution application. The grounds for delay in not preferring the connected substitution petition on within the stipulated time has been categorically mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of the application. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on having gone through the contention made in paragraph No. 3 of this application, this court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by a sufficient cause for not preferring the connected substitution petition within the stipulated time. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondents has no objection for condoning the delay. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the delay of 278 days in preferring the connected substitution petition is hereby condoned. The I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant