Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25994 (GAU)

JAMAL UDDIN AHMED v. ROZINA PARBIN

I.A.(Civil)/1820/2025 · 2025-12-15

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010121762025 2025:GAU-AS:17393 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1820/2025 JAMAL UDDIN AHMED S/O LATE AMANULLAH @ BOGA MASTER, VILL- SOUTH RANGAPANI PART II, P.S.- BOKO, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS ROZINA PARBIN W/O JAMAL UDDIN AHMED, D/O ROFIJUL MONDAL, R/O VILL- DOLGOMA, COLLEGE PARA, P.S.- MATIA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN-783339 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ALI, MR. Y ALI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. I H SAIKIA, MR. B BORAH,MR. K KALITA,MR K KASHYAB BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 16-12-2025 Learned counsel Mr. A. Ali is present for the applicant. 2. Learned counsel Mr. I.H. Saikia is present for the respondent. 3. This is an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 with prayer for condonation of delay of 156 (One Hundred Fifty Six) days in the Page No.# 2/2 connected Civil Revision Petition. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2024 passed in connection with Title Suit No. 19/2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Goalpara. On 19.11.2024, a first appeal was filed and as the appeal was filed under wrong perception, the same was withdrawn. Subsequently, the present revision petition was filed. This resulted in the delay. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent laid stress in his argument that the delay has not been properly mentioned. It is not on the record when the petition under wrong perception was filed and when it was withdrawn. Sufficient grounds have not been shown and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 7. It appears that sufficient reasons have been assigned by the application. It appears that there was no malafide on the part of the applicant. No inaction is discernible. It appears that delay may be condoned. Thereby, the delay of 156 (One Hundred Fifty Six) days in filing the connected revision petition subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) to be paid to the respondent. 8. In terms of the above observation, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. 9. Registry to register the connected Civil Revision Petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant