Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010257482025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3894/2025 NAZIMA KHAN AND 2 ORS W/O LATE ABDUR RASHID KHAN, R/OVILL. ISLAMPUR (BOC), P.O. BALADMARI, P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN783121 2: ATTIQUE SHAHDAT KHAN S/O LATE ABDUR RASHID KHAN R/O VILL. ISLAMPUR (BOC) P.O. BALADMARI P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN 783121 3: TANJEEL KHAN S/O LATE ABDUR RASHID KHAN R/O VILL. ISLAMPUR (BOC) P.O. BALADMARI P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN78312 VERSUS SRI CHATTRA KR DAS S/O LATE DWIJENDRA KR. DAS, R/O VILL. GOALTOLI, P.O. BALADMARI, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN 783384 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY, B DAS,MD. MEMON AHMED,MR. A M AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A R SIKDAR, J A SIKDAR,MR. M H TALUKDAR Page No.# 2/10 Linked Case : CRP(IO)/157/2024 CHATTRA KR DAS S/O LATE DWIJENDRA KR. DAS R/O GOALTOLI P.O.-BALADMARI P.S. AND DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783121 VERSUS NAZMINA KHATUN AND 2 ORS W/O LATE ABDUR RASHID KHAN R/O ISLAMPUR (B.O.C.) P.O.-BALADMARI P.S. AND DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783121 2:ATTIQUE SHAHADAT KHAN S/O LATE ABDUR RASHID KHAN R/O ISLAMPUR (B.O.C.) P.O.-BALADMARI P.S. AND DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783121 3:TANJEEL KHAN S/O LATE ABDUR RASHID KHAN R/O ISLAMPUR (B.O.C.) P.O.-BALADMARI P.S. AND DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783121 ------------ Advocate for : MR. A R SIKDAR Advocate for : appearing for NAZMINA KHATUN AND 2 ORS Linked Case : CROP/0/0 NAZMINA KHAN ALIAS NAZMINA KHATUN ASSAM Page No.# 3/10 VERSUS SRI CHATTRA KR DAS ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : PUJA GHOSH Advocate for : appearing for SRI CHATTRA KR DAS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date - 21.05.2026 1. Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. M. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicants for condoning the delay of 199 days in filing the connected review petition wherein the petitioners have prayed for review of the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by this Court in CRP(I/O) No.157/2024. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Interlocutory Application, in brief, are that the present respondent, namely, Sri Chattra Kumar Das had instituted a Title Suit bearing No. 21/ 2016 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Goalpara praying for specific performance of contract against the predecessor of the present applicants, namely, late Abdul Rashid Khan. The aforesaid title suit Page No.# 4/10 proceeded ex parte and an ex parte judgment was given by the Trial Court on 07.05.2018. 4. Thereafter, a Title Execution Case bearing T. Ex. Case No. 02/2019 was instituted by the present respondent. The said Title Execution Case was also disposed of after execution of the decree. 5. The present applicants thereafter, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with an application for condonation of delay in preferring the said application before the Trial Court for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The Trial Court, by its order dated 05.02.2024, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 88/2022, condoned the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside ex-parte judgment dated 07.05.2018 in Title Suit No. 21/2016. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present respondent approached this Court by filing the CRP(I/O) No.157/2024. 6. Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that in the title suit filed by the present respondent, the suit proceeded ex-parte as the notice was held to be served upon father of the predecessor in interest of the present applicants, namely, one Rafiqul Islam. However, it is contended by the applicants that no such brother of late Abdul Rashid Khan by the name of Rafiqul Islam exists. 7. The learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that upon receipt of the notice in the CRP(I/O) No. 157/2024, the applicants contacted one Rafiqul Islam, the learned counsel, at his Page No.# 5/10 residential chamber at Ghoramara, Hatigaon and engaged him to defend them before this Court by paying him fees as well as by giving him signed vakalatnama. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the applicants that on 16.11.2024, when the applicants inquired the said engaged counsel about the case, he intimated them that the date of hearing of the case would be intimated later on and notices were issued. 8. The learned senior counsel for the applicants has submitted that the engaged counsel even did not provide the case number to the applicants and assured them that he will provide the copy of the final order to them very soon. However, later on, the applicants came to know through the online portal of the High Court that the said CRP(I/O) has been disposed of by this Court on 02.04.2025 and on that day, none had appeared for the applicants when the matter was called on for hearing. It also came to their notice that even vakalatnama was not filed by the engaged counsel in the said case. 9. The learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that later on the engaged counsel for the applicants returned them the brief on 12.10.2025 and also returned the fees, which he took in installments. The learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants were cheated by the aforementioned legal counsel in the name of providing legal assistance and, accordingly, the applicants also filed a complaint against the engaged counsel namely, Rafiqul Islam before the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh praying for taking necessary action against him. Page No.# 6/10 10. She further submits that in the process of pursuing action against the engaged counsel Rafiqul Islam, the delay of 199 days occurred in preferring the connected review petition before this Court. The learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were made to suffer due to no fault of their own as their engaged counsel committed professional misconduct by not appearing before the Court after he was engaged by the present applicants, on the day when the matter was called on for hearing. She, therefore, submits that the delay of 199 days which has occurred in preferring the connected review petition may be condoned for the ends of justice and the review petition filed by the present applicants may be registered and heard. In support of her submission, the learned senior counsel for the applicants has cited following rulings. i. Prakash Seshmal Jain Vs. Sukhmal & Sons and Another reported in (1998) 9 SCC 718 ii. N. Balakrishnan Vs. N. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 11. On the other hand, Mr. A. R. Sikdar, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the applicants have failed to show any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 199 days in preferring the connected review petition. He submits that the applicants have made false statement regarding coming to know the number of the CRP(I/O), which was pending in this Court as the notices received by them clearly mention about the case number of the CRP(I/O) therein. He submits that the applicants have also failed to mention as to on which date they came to know about the ex-parte order Page No.# 7/10 passed in CRP(I/O). He further submits that the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by this Court in CRP(I/O) No.157/2024 was submitted before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Goalpara on 04.06.2025 in Misc (J) Case No. 83/2022, therefore, it can be held that the present applicants came to know about the aforesaid order on 04.06.2025. 12. He further submits that even if the version of the applicants is taken into consideration that they came to know about the order passed in CRP(I/O) after 19.08.2025, still they have failed to explain the delay in preferring the connected review petition which was filed by the present applicants only on 17.11.2025. 13. He submits that since apparently the applicants have resorted to falsehood in suppressing the date of knowledge about the order dated 02.04.2025 passed in CRP(I/O) No. 157/2024 hence, he submits that the applicants are not entitled to get the benefit of a discretionary relief like condonation of delay in a case of such a huge delay of 199 days. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the law of limitation creates a right after lapse of the period of limitation in favour of the respondent, therefore, the party seeking condonation of delay has an obligation to explain the delay by showing the sufficient cause. However, in the instant case, he submits that the applicants were negligent and have failed to explain the delay of 199 days in preferring the review petition, therefore, he prays for dismissing the instant Interlocutory Application. In support of his Page No.# 8/10 submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited the following rulings. i. Lanka Venkateshwarlu (D) by LRS Vs. State of AP and Others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 363. ii. Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRS Vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project and Another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448. iii. Ramlal Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported in (1962) to SCR 762. iv. Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. I have also gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 16. On perusal of the averments made by the applicants in this instant Interlocutory Application, it appears that though the applicants have stated that their counsel did not provide the case number to them, however they have themselves stated in paragraph No. 7 of the instant Interlocutory Application that they received the notice from the High Court in CRP(I/O) No. 157/2024. The acknowledgement of the receipt of notice by the applicants itself shows that they were aware about the case number of the CRP(I/O). Page No.# 9/10 17. Be that as it may, the applicants have not stated specifically as to on which date they came to know about the order dated 02.04.2025 passed in CRP(I/O) No. 157/2024. Further, though the applicants have vividly described in the instant Interlocutory Application as to how their engaged counsel namely, Mr. Rafiqul Islam committed professional misconduct. However, they have not explained specifically as to after coming to know about the order dated 02.04.2025 why it took 199 days for them to prefer the review petition. 18. The learned senior counsel for the applicants has only stated that in the process of pursuing the complaint against the erring counsel, namely, Rafiqul Islam before the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, the delay occurred in preferring the connected review petition. 19. This Court is of the view that the applicants could have explained more specifically the reasons for delay in preferring the connected review petition. However, the entire thrust of the applicants in this Interlocutory Application is only in showing the professional misconduct committed by Rafiqul Islam. 20. Though in paragraph No.12 of the instant Interlocutory Application, the applicants have not stated in so many words the reason for the delay in preferring the connected review petition. However, considering the circumstances to which the applicants were subjected to due to alleged professional misconduct committed by their engaged counsel, this Court is taking a liberal view of the matter and accordingly, condones the delay of 199 days in preferring Page No.# 10/10 the connected review petition subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the applicants to the respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. 21. The said amount of cost shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court within the said period and if the said cost is deposited, the same shall be disbursed to the respondent by the Registry. 22. On such deposit of cost, the connected review petition shall be registered and listed for admission. 23. With the above observation, this Interlocutory Application is, accordingly, allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant