Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010066652026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2954/2025 JAYGAN NESSA W/O. MD. INNAS ALI VILL.- DOULGURI P/O. DHEKIAJULI DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM. VERSUS MUKTA GHOSH AND 2 ORS S/O. BABU GOSH VILL.- MOLANDI P/O. KALIGANJ-741150 DIST. NADIA WEST BENGAL. 2:DEBU GOSH S/O. BABU GOSH VILL.- MOLANDI P/O. KALIGANJ-741150 DIST. NADIA WEST BENGAL. 3:BAJAJ ALLIANCE GEN. INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. SREEJI TOWER 3RD FLOOR C/O. GAUHATI TEA WARE HOUSING PVT. LTD. G.S. ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI P/O. GUWAHATI-781005 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 ------------ Advocate for : MR. A R AGARWALA Advocate for : MS. M SAIKIA (R-3) appearing for MUKTA GHOSH AND 2 ORS BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 02.06.2026 Mr. A.R. Agarwala, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party No.3. Office note dated 07.04.2026 indicates that notice upon the respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not be served. However, Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent/opposite party Nos.1 and 2 did not contest the MAC Case No.2748/2017 before the learned Tribunal and as such, their names may be struck off from the array of this application. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the applicant, the names of the respondent/opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are struck off from the array of this application at the cost and risk of the applicant. Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this interlocutory application is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 54 days in preferring the connected MAC appeal against the judgment and award dated 04.04.2025, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No.2748/2017. Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an illiterate and rustic villager and she is not aware about the period of limitation in Page No.# 3/3 respect of filing the appeal and also there was financial constraint and as such, the appeal could not be filed in time and there is a delay of 54 days and the same is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and under such circumstances, he has contended to condone the same. Mr. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 submits that he has no objection in the event of condoning the delay. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the explanation, so put forwarded in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 of this application, this Court is of the view that the delay has been sufficiently explained and accordingly, the same stands condoned. Now, the Registry to register and number the connected appeal and list the same before the Court as soon as practicable by reflecting the names of the learned counsel for both the parties in the cause list. In terms of above, the I.A. stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE