Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010078722025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1307/2025 RAKESH SHUKLA S/O LATE RAM KEWAL SHUKLA, R/O MAJHAULI COMPOUND, P.O. DAUDPUR, GORAKHPUR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN 273001 VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF SANJIV KUMAR SHUKLA HIS LEGAL HEIR NAMELY SUDHIR SHUKLA AND 3 ORS PERMANENT R/O 117, BT ROAD, EVERGREEN PLAZA, FIRST FLOOR, KOLKATA 108, WEST BENGAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DOHOTIA ROAD, TINSUKIA, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN 786125 2:RAJIV KUMAR SHUKLA S/O LATE RAM KEWAL SHUKLA R/O D 262 SIDHA REGAL FLAT NO 201 DEVI MARG BANNIPARK JAIPUR RAJASTHAN. 3:SMTI SANGEETA TRIPATHI (SHUKLA) D/O LATE RAM KEWAL SHUKLA W/O NAND KISHORE TRIPATHI R/O I.A. SIB BIHAR COLONY IN FRONT OF MB HERO BASARATPUR NEAR KARAIYA POKHARA MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD GORAKHPUR 273004 UTTAR PRADESH. Page No.# 2/8 4:SMTI SUNITA MANI TRIPATHI (SHUKLA) D/O LATE RAM KEWAL SHUKLA W/O JITENDRA MANI TRIPATHI R/O SIB BIHAR COLONY BASARATPUR NEAR KARAIYA POKHARA MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD GORAKHPUR 273004 UTTAR PRADESH Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. BHASKAR DUTTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MS L RONGPIPI,MR JITENDRA DAS,MR. SAILENDRA DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : x, MR. D CHOUDHURY(R3,4),MS. A KHARBANI(R3,4),MR T CHAKRABORTY(R3,4),MR. R S MISHRA(R-1),MR. A K GUPTA (R-1) Linked Case : FAO/4531/2025 RAKESH SHUKLA Assam VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF SANJIV KUMAR SHUKLA HIS LEGAL HEIR NAMELY SUDHIR SHUKLA Assam ------------ Advocate for : MR. JITENDRA DAS Advocate for : appearing for ON THE DEATH OF SANJIV KUMAR SHUKLA HIS LEGAL HEIR NAMELY SUDHIR SHUKLA Page No.# 3/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the appellant/applicant praying for condonation of delay of 330 days in filing the connected FAO against the impugned Order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Tinsukia in Misc (J) Case No. 85/2020, arising out of Title Suit No. 27/2020, whereby the application made by the appellant/plaintiff for appointment of receiver for administration of the estate of late Ram Kewal Shukla in respect of the suit property was rejected. 3. The main ground taken by the applicant herein is that immediately after the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 was passed, the counsel for the appellant had advised him to file an appeal against the said order dated 13.02.2024 however, the applicant with a view to resolve the dispute amicably outside the Court requested the respondents through their common family friend to resolve the dispute amongst them outside the Court inasmuch as they are brothers and sisters. In pursuance thereto, the original defendant No.1 also agreed to resolve the dispute amongst themselves outside the Court considering the fact that they are all family members. Thereafter on several occasions, the applicants and the defendants have made some deliberations. Unfortunately after some time the original defendant No.1 fell seriously ill and as a result of which, the Page No.# 4/8 compromise talks could not progress. However, the original defendant no.1 through their family friend assured the applicant that immediately after he recovered from illness, the matter would be resolved by signing a deed of compromise settlement. However, the original defendant no.1 ultimately passed away on 24.12.2024. 4. It is the further submissions of the learned Senior counsel that after the death of the original defendant No.1, the applicants filed necessary application in the suit for substitution of the legal heirs, which was allowed by the learned Court below by an order dated 12.03.2025. After, substitution of the present respondent No.1 A in the suit, in the third week of March, 2025, the applicant tried to contact the present respondent No.1A through their common family friend to finalize the compromise talk which had started earlier with his late father. But the respondent No.1A refused to contact the applicant and refused to settle the dispute amicably. 5. Faced with such a situation, the applicant/appellant has decided to file the instant connected appeal and thereafter contacted his counsel and asked him to prepare the appeal in the month of March, 2025. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant took about 5 days time to prepare the Memo of Appeal and accordingly the Appeal was filed on 08.04.2025 thereby there has been a delay of 330 days in preferring the connected appeal. 7. Learned Senior counsel submits that there is no laches and negligence on the part of the applicant and the circumstances narrated herein above clearly indicates that the applicant has been prevented by sufficient cause from Page No.# 5/8 preferring the appeal on time. 8. Learned Senior counsel further submits that there is no wilful delay on his part and the delay has not been intentional. However, it was caused due to the genuine belief that the dispute could be settled outside the Court amicably. 9. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant/applicant has relied on the case of B. Madhuri Goud Vs B. Damodar Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC 693, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that the Limitation Act of 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The Supreme Court further held that the expression “sufficient cause” used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. And no hard and fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years courts have repeatedly observed that a liberal approach needs to be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay. 10. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant/applicant has relied on the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has made similar observation in the matter of condonation of delay. 11. Learned Senior counsel therefore, prays that the delay of 330 days may be condoned and the instant application may be allowed. 12. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1A Page No.# 6/8 has raised his objection in the instant application and has filed an affidavit-in- opposition. 13. Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1A by filing the said affidavit has submitted that there were no talks or deliberations to settle the matter either with the deponent or his late father and that such averments are not correct. He submits that the respondent No.1 A being the son of the late defendant No.1 was not aware about any talks or settlement between the parties whereas he had been living with his father all along and if there had been any talks of settlement, it would have been in his knowledge. 14. Learned counsel, therefore submits that the reason for delay given in the instant application is incorrect and the submissions are false. In fact he submits that the delay is due to the negligence and laches on the part of the appellant and the reasons are fabricated and baseless. And therefore, the instant application is liable to be dismissed. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1A has also relied on the case of H. Guruswamy and Ors Vs A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRS. Reported in 2025 INSC 53, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the length of delay is definitely a relevant matter which the Court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. The Court held that once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay. 16. The learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case was of the view that the question of limitation is not Page No.# 7/8 merely a technical consideration and the rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles or equity. He has also referred to a Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Rajammal Vs Sathursamy reported in AIR Online 2020 Mad 24, wherein in a similar case the petitioners have stated that there was an attempt to settle the issues within the parties through the elders of their community. However, the Hon’ble High Court had come to a conclusion that such talks and deliberations cannot be valid reasons and they could not explain the delay with convincing reasons and therefore the Court had not entertained the application for condonation of delay. 17. Learned counsel therefore submits that even in the instant case the reasons given by the applicant about the settlement talks between the parties cannot be a valid reason for the delay and therefore, prays that this application may be dismissed. 18. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings before this Court. 19. It is the view of this Court that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. There should be a pragmatic justice oriented approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay for a Court is not supposed to legalise injustice but is obliged to remove injustice. Moreover, the term “sufficient cause” should be understood in its proper sprit and it has to be considered that the term “sufficient cause” is basically elastic and is to be applied in proper perspective. This Court is also of the view that the cause of substantial justice is of paramount importance and the technical considerations should normally not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. Moreover, applications for condonation of delay has to be appreciated in the light of the Page No.# 8/8 facts and circumstances of each case. In a certain case the delay may be huge but may be condoned. In another case even a delay of few days may not be condoned. 20. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Madhuri Goud (supra) , the limitation Act has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. 21. In the instant case, this Court is of the view that the reasons given by the applicant herein that the talks for settlement have been going on between the parties as they are family members can be a valid reason for the delay and this Court is also of the view that such reasons can be a sufficient cause for the delay caused in filing the instant appeal as normally family members would always try to settle things outside the Court instead of litigation. 22. In view of the observations made herein above, the delay of 330 days in filing the connected appeal is condoned and this instant application stands allowed. 23. This Interlocutory Application stands disposed of accordingly. 24. The Registry shall register the main FAO and thereafter list the same for admission on 16.07.2026. JUDGE Comparing Assistant