Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3132 (GAU)

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED HUDCO v. ON THE DEATH OF RESPONDENT NO 4 SRI ARUN BORAH HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES NAMELY AMIT BORAH

I.A.(Civil)/3932/2025 · 2026-02-24

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010264242025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : I.A.(Civil)/3932/2025 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED HUDCO A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION REGD UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT HUDCO BHAWAN INDIA HABITAT CENTRE LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003 AND HAVING ITS GUWAHATI ZONAL OFFICE AT HOUSEFED COMPLEX RUKIMINI GAON G S ROAD GUWAHATI- 781022 AND REP. BY THE REGIONAL CHIEF HUDCO GUWAHATI VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF RESPONDENT NO 4 SRI ARUN BORAH HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES NAMELY AMIT BORAH SON OF LATE ARUN BORAH RESIDENT OF BAROWARY GUWAHATI DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781001 ------------ Advocate for : MR G BHARADWAJ Advocate for : appearing for ON THE DEATH OF RESPONDENT NO 4 SRI ARUN BORAH HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES NAMELY AMIT BORAH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 25.02.2026 Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.R. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. Other respondents have been Page No.# 2/2 duly served but none appears. This I.A. has been filed under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for substitution of names of the legal representatives of deceased/ respondent No. 4, late Sri Arun Borah, who expired on 28.03.2024 and as such the said respondent is required to be substituted by his legal heirs namely, respondent Nos. 4(a) Amit Borah (son) and 4(b) Ms. Pallavi Borah (daughter). Therefore, deceased/ respondent No. 4 is now required to be represented by his legal representatives namely the respondent Nos. (4(a) Amit Borah (son) and 4(b) Ms. Pallavi Borah (daughter) in the connected appeal. No objection to the same has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. As the delay in preferring the connected application for substitution has already been condoned in the connected I.A (Civil)/ 3933/ 2025 by order passed today, accordingly, the prayer for substitution is allowed. The deceased/ respondent No. 4 stands substituted by his legal heirs mentioned above. Let the cause title be amended accordingly. The I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant