Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010061642023 2025:GAU-AS:16344 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/36/2023 M/S ASSAM TRADE AND AGENCY REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR- SRI DURGESH CHAND CHOUDHURY, S/O- LATE RAM AVATAR CHOUDHURY, R/O- BARPETA ROAD, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781315. VERSUS KIDC REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS- SRI PRANAB DEKA, OPP. S. D. COLLEGE, WARD NO. 1, P.O. TIHU, PIN- 781371, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B J GHOSH, MR. DILIP DEY Advocate for the Respondent : MS K DEKA, MR. S D ROY,MS. P K DEVI :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 01.12.2025 Heard Mr. D. Dey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.D. Roy, learned counsel representing the respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 115, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta in Misc.(J) Case No.45/2022 arising out of Money Suit No.44/2018. 3. The petitioner filed the Money Suit for a huge amount of money against the present respondent. On 28.03.2019, the petitioner was absent without steps before the trial court and the suit was dismissed for default. 4. In the month of March, 2022, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the order dated 28.03.2019 and for restoration of the suit. The said petition was accompanied by a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the said petition. For various reasons, the trial court dismissed the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. The petitioner claims that on 07.02.2022, he came to know about dismissal of his suit. According to the petitioner, he engaged counsels from Guwahati and Barpeta and they did not inform him about the dismissal of his suit. The trial court has held that dependency upon the lawyers was not acceptable to the court. According to the trial court, the petitioner himself should have procured news about his suit regularly. 6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. The suit was filed for recovery of more than forty-seven lakhs of rupees. It is a settled position of law that while considering a prayer for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts are not expected to be hyper technical. Little bit of negligence on the part of the petitioner is visible in this case. But the courts must remember one thing in mind that the primary duty of a court is to administer justice. The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of a large amount of money. If the suit is not restored to file, the petitioner would not have any other forum to seek relief. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order 17.12.2022 is set aside. The delay stands condoned. The Money Suit No.44/2018 pending in the court of Civil Judge, Barpeta is restored to file. The trial court shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law. Page No.# 3/3 With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant