Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3598 (GAU)

HARICHARAN DAS ALIAS RAJBONGSHI v. JADAB DEKA

I.A.(Civil)/2740/2025 · 2026-07-19

Robin Phukan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010184802025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2740/2025 HARICHARAN DAS ALIAS RAJBONGSHI S/O LATE BHEDLA DAS, R/O VILL. BARSARKUCHI, MOUZA-BATAHGHILA, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN 781335 VERSUS JADAB DEKA S/O LATE LOHIT DEKA, R/O BARSARKUCHI, MOUZA-BATAHGILA, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN 781335 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD R ISLAM, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S K GOSWAMI, MR. R SHARMA Linked Case : RSA/150/2016 SRI HARICHARAN DAS @ RAJBONGSHI S/O LATE BHEDLA DAS R/O VILL. BARSARKUCHI MOUZA-BATAHGHILA DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781335 VERSUS Page No.# 2/3 SRI JADAB DEKA S/O LATE LOHIT DEKA R/O BARSARKUCHI MOUZA-BATAHGILA DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781335 ------------ Advocate for : MR.J ISLAM Advocate for : appearing for SRI JADAB DEKA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 20.07.2026 Heard Md. R. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 101 days in filing the restoration petition for restoring RSA No. 150/2016, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2025, for default. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that on account of ill health, he could not remain present in the Court and file the application in time, and that the delay is not intentional, rather, it is circumstantial and therefore, he has contended to condone the same. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that he has no objection in the event of allowing this application. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for both the Page No.# 3/3 parties and also considering the explanation so forthcoming for the delay, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 101 days in filing the restoration petition. In terms of the above, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant