Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010250642024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/495/2025 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KOLKATA, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GHY-5, ASSAM. VERSUS JYOTSNA BEWA AND 6 ORS W/O. LT. NUR ISLAM 2:NOMIJA BIBI W/O. LT. SAYED ALI. 3:MAMANI BEGUM WD/O. LT. NUR ISLAM 4:NUR BHANU KHATUN D/O. LT. NUR ISLAM 5:RIJUNA BEGUM D/O. LT. NUR ISLAM ALL ARE R/O. VILL.- JAPOSHABARI PT-II P/S. AGOMONI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM. 6:LALIT CHANDRA ROY S/O. SIBENDRA NATH ROY VILL.- JAPOSHABARI PT.-II P/S. GOLOKGANJ (NOW AGOMONI) DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM. 7:MOTIAR RAHMAN S/O. MD. EBRAHIM Page No.# 2/5 R/O. VILL.- JAPOSHABARI (NOW AGOMONI) DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H BURAGOHAIN, MS L SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR B K MISHRA(R6,7), MR. I A TALUKDAR(R1,2),A R MONDAL(R6,7),MR. S ISLAM(R6,7) Linked Case : NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VERSUS MOSTT JYOTSNA BEWA AND 6 ORS ------------ Advocate for : MR. H BURAGOHAIN Advocate for : appearing for MOSTT JYOTSNA BEWA AND 6 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date – 17.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. I. A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 as well as Mr. S. Islam, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 6 and 7. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. praying for the condonation of delay of 2,508 days in preferring the connected appeal, whereby it has impugned the judgment and order dated 14.10.2015, passed in MAC Case No. 71/2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kokrajhar. Page No.# 3/5 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant earlier had filed an appeal against the aforesaid impugned judgment and order on 18.01.2016. However, there was some defect in the said filing and as such, the said appeal was not registered. 4. She further submits that though the defect was rectified, however, for the second time again, some defects were noticed in the appeal. She submits that the said defects escaped the notice of the engaged counsel and in the process a considerable period of time lapsed. 5. She further submits that as the earlier record could not be traced out after a consideration lapse of time, the applicant took steps for filing the appeal afresh and accordingly, on 25.11.2024, the fresh appeal was filed without any defect. However, in the process, a delay of 2,508 days have occurred. She submits that said delay was not due to any lapse on the part of the applicant but on the part of the engaged counsel for the applicant. She further submits that the delay is totally unintentional and as well has occurred due to genuine and cogent reasons, therefore, she prays for condoning the delay of 2,508 days. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that the claimants deprived of the fruits of the award for last more than 10 years. He submits that in this case the delay is a huge delay of more than 2,508 days and same has not been explained properly. Hence, he submits that the prayer for condoning the delay may not be leniently considered and same should be dismissed. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 submits that even when the defective appeal was filed by the present applicant at the first instance, the matter was also listed before the Court on eight occasions. However, in spite of that the defect could not be Page No.# 4/5 rectified by the appellant. He submits that no proper cause has been shown as to why the appellant failed to rectify the defect at the first instance and thereafter, filed this appeal after a lapse of more than eight and half years. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have also gone through the materials available on the record. 9. Though, while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay, the Court usually takes a lenient and justice-oriented approach. However, in the instant case, it appears that there has been inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the cause shown by the applicant does not appeal to the conscience of this Court. 10. It is pertinent to note herein that an appeal is said to be filed in a Court only from the date when it is found to be without defects. Filing an appeal with defects would not save such an appellant from the rigors of law of limitation, if no “sufficient cause” has been shown for such delay. 11. In the instant case, this Court is of considered opinion that considering the inordinate delay in filing the appeal as well as cause which have been stated in the instant Interlocutory Application, same under no circumstances be regarded as sufficient cause “within the meaning of the phrase used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963”. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to show that it was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 12. The applicant has failed to explain the inordinate delay of 2,508 days in filing the connected appeal. As such, the prayer for condonation of delay Page No.# 5/5 of 2,508 days is hereby rejected and this Interlocutory Application is accordingly, dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant