Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010055112025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1272/2025 KRISHNENDU CHAKRABORTY S/O- KALI KISHORE CHAKRABORTY, PERMANENT R/O- SWASTI DHAM, PANCHAYAT ROAD, PO AND PS- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS FULMOTI DUTTA AND ORS W/O- SASHANKA MOHAN DUTTA, VILL- KURKARI PT- IV, PO- KALAIN, PS- KATIGORAH, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM 2:SASHANKA MOHAN DUTTA S/O- LATE SUNA CHAND DUTTA VILL- KURKARI PT- IV PO- KALAIN PS- KATIGORAH DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 3:PURNIMA RANI DUTTA D/O- SRI SASHANKA MOHAN DUTTA VILL- KURKARI PT- IV PO- KALAIN PS- KATIGORAH DIST- CACHAR Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM 4:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD SILCHAR OPERATING OFFICE PROGRESSIVE HEIGHT 1ST FLOOR HOSPITAL ROAD P.O. AND P.S- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SANJAY SUTRADHAR, MR A B DEY Advocate for the Respondent : MS L SHARMA (R-4), MS P SARMA (R-1,3),MR. R SHARMA (R- 1,3),MR. S K GOSWAMI (R-1,3) Linked Case : RP(FAM.CT.)/0/0 KRISHNENDU CHAKRABORTY S/O- KALI KISHORE CHAKRABORTY PERMANENT R/O- SWASTI DHAM PANCHAYAT ROAD PO AND PS- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS FULMOTI DUTTA W/O- SASHANKA MOHAN DUTTA VILL- KURKARI PT IV PO KALAIN PS KATIGORAH DIST- CACHAR ASSAM Page No.# 3/4 ------------ Advocate for : MR SANJAY SUTRADHAR Advocate for : appearing for FULMOTI DUTTA BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 06.11.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. A. B. Dey on behalf of the applicant, Krishnendu Chakraborty and learned counsel Mr. S. K. Goswami for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with prayer for condonation of delay of 861 days in filing the connected appeal. This delay was the result of a review application which was filed before the learned Trial Court and the pendency of the review application in the Tribunal. The review application however was rejected on 05.07.2024 by the learned tribunal in connection with Misc.Cas. No. 09/2022. It appears that sufficient grounds have been shown. It is submitted at the Bar that the review application was filed with a prayer to consider the insurance which was not made part of the Police report in the original MAC Case no. 1117/2015. No inaction is discernable on the part of the applicant. After considering the submissions at the Bar, this appears to be a just case to condone the delay. Hereby, delay is condoned. Registry to register the connected appeal. In terms of the above observation, this I.A. stands disposed of. Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant