Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010163692019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2666/2019 SMTI. SOMARI PANNA AND 2 ORS. W/O- LATE BIRCHA PANNA 2: MISS MINU PANNA MINOR DAUGHTER OF LATE BIRCHA PANNA REP. BY THEIR MOTHER APPILICANT NO. 1. 3: MISS PYARI PANNA MINOR DAUGHTER OF LATE BIRCHA PANNA REP. BY THEIR MOTHER APPILICANT NO. 1. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL.- NAWPUTTA BUNBARI P.O. COLAGAON P.S. SIMLA DIST.- BAKSA BTAD ASSAM VERSUS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS. A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA AND ONE OF ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI, ASSAM. 2:KARMA BASUMATARY S/O- M. BASUMATARY R/O- VILL.- BHALMANUHUAR VITHA P.O. GOLAGAON P.S. SIMLA DIST.- BAKSA Page No.# 2/5 BTAD ASSAM. 3:SANJIT TALUKDAR S/O- BINANDA TALUKDAR R/O- PATHSALA TOWN H/NO. 77 P.S. PATACHARKUCHI DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS S B CHOUDHURY, A G CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. S ROY (r-1), Linked Case : SMTI SOMARI PANNA AND 2 ORS VERSUS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS ------------ Advocate for : Advocate for : appearing for NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 06.11.2025 Heard Mrs. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears for the respondents on call. 2. By way of this interlocutory application, the applicant is seeking condoning the delay of 494 days in filing the accompanying review application. 3. The grounds/reasons as stated in the application reads as under: - “2. The grounds/reasons for the aforesaid delay care that the applicant is a widow who has no knowledge regarding the procedure of the Court. Moreover, her Counsel had never advised her to approach this Hon'ble Court for redressal of her grievances. It is only when the applicant met the present counsel in course of her visit to Guwahati, in the month of December, 2018, she was advised to approach this Hon'ble Court with in regard to modification of the judgment and order dated 22-08-2017 passed in MAC Appeal No. 154/2016 in respect of quantum of Award. But unfortunately, the said Counsel returned the file of the applicant on 2-1-2019 without preparing any brief. Therefore, she approached the present Counsel on 4-1-2019, accepted the brief from the applicant on 5-1-2019 and prepared the Review Application after going through all the documents and filed the Review Application on 29-1-2019. Hence, there has been delay of 494 Days in preferring the instant Review Application, which is not willful or deliberate but under compelling circumstances, beyond control of the applicant. 3. That the applicant most respectfully states and submits that she has a good case on merit, which may be heard by this Hon'ble Court for modification of the aforesaid judgment and order, by condoning the delay of 494days.” Page No.# 4/5 4. In response to the notice received, the respondents have filed objection wherein they have objected to the prayer for condonation. Relevant paragraph of the affidavit-in-opposition read as under: - “5. That with regard to the statements in paragraph 2 of the application are not correct and denied by the deponent. The deponent begs to state the applicant stated she has no knowledge regarding the procedure of the Court but mere statement itself is not just and reasonable. Further, the applicant stated that in the month of December, 2018 she was advised by her Counsel to approach the Hon'ble Court with in regard to modification of the judgment and order dated 22-08-2017 passed in MAC Appeal no. 154/2016 in respect of quantum of award, however the said Counsel returned the file of the applicant on 2-01-2019 without preparing any brief and therefore on 4-1-2019, the applicant approached the present Counsel sand was briefed on 5-1-2019 and on 29-1-2019, the review application was filed but the said statement is not enough to condone the delay as it cannot act as a proper ground for condoning the delay in this matter. Moreover, the counsel who was engaged in the present review application was also appeared in the MAC Appeal No. 154 of 2016 and the present review application is also filed against the Judgment and Award passed in the said appeal.” Therefore, the deponent states that the contention of the applicant is not correct so as to condone the delay for the said period.” 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and having perused the pleadings, it is apparent that the applicant who is a widow was not initially properly advised by her then counsel and only after the change of counsel upon being properly advised, the steps for filing the connected review petition was taken; however, while doing so a delay of 494 days occurred. As such, this court finds that the aforesaid explanations in support of the said delay are sufficient and bonafide and accordingly, the delay of 494 days is condoned. 6. The review petition be accordingly registered and listed thereof. Page No.# 5/5 7. The interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant