Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010276322024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/4076/2024 M/S HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 6TH FLOOR, LEELA BUSINESS PARK, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI- 400059 AND A BRANCH OFFICE AT 6TH FLOOR, ADITYAM BUILDING, G.S. ROAD, LACHIT NAGAR, GUWAHATI-781007. VERSUS NITAI BHOWMICK AND 2 ORS S/O- LATE SIDAM BHOWMICK, R/O- BANSHBARI PUB BONGAL PUKHURI, P.S. AND DIST.- JORHAT, P.O. RAJABARI, PIN- 785014. 2:MD. SHAMARUDDIN S/O- LATE FAIZUR RAHMAN R/O- RAJAMAIDAM NEW COLONY P.S. P.O. AND DIST.- JORHAT PIN- 785001. (OWNER OF MAHINDRA XYLO NO. AS-03M/7025) Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K BHATTA, Advocate for the Respondent : DR R SARMA, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 10.12.2025 The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed praying for condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the restoration application. Page No.# 2/2 Heard Ms. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submits on 11.06.2024, when the appeal was listed for order, the advocates for both the sides had appeared before the Court and the case was ordered to be listed for hearing on 18.07.2024. On 18.07.2024, when the case was listed for hearing, the advocate for the appellant instructed his junior to take some time but unfortunately his junior could not appear as he was on leg before another Court and therefore, the matter was unattended. Thereafter on 20.08.2024, when the appeal was listed for hearing, due to oversight of the advocate for the appellant, he could not see the item in the cause-list and as a result, he could not appear before the Court when the matter was called. The Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution by order dated 20.08.2024. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petition for reviving the MAC Appeal no. 253/2020 ought to have been filed within 30 days but since the appellant was unaware about the dismissal, the same could not be filed within the period of limitation and hence, the delay of 75 days has occurred in filing the restoration petition. The Court has examined the causes shown in the application and is satisfied with that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay of 75 days in preferring the restoration petition. Accordingly the delay of 75 days in preferring the restoration petition is condoned. The interlocutory application stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant