Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010209922025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3504/2025 SMT BINAMONI RAY WIFE OF LATE SANJAY BARUAH 2: SRI SANJU RAY SON OF LATE SANJAY BARUAH BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HEKAIPARA BASUGAON LATE KHANIN RAY CHIRANG ASSAM VERSUS SMT MUNMI BARUAH AND ANR W/O LATE SANJAY BARUAH, R/O VILLAGE TITADIMARU, MOHANBARI, DIST. DIBRUGARH, PIN 78600, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B R A SULTANA, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S ALI, MR. A GOSWAMI,MR B ISLAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 19.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. B. R. A. Sultana, learned legal-aid-counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Page No.# 2/3 2. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 211 days in filing the connected appeal in which the order dated 19.12.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh, in Misc.(J) Case No. 43/2023 has been impugned. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondent No. 1 had filed a succession case before the Court of learned District Judge, Dibrugarh and same was registered as Misc. (Succession) Case No. 22/2021, which was disposed of by passing ex-parte order dated 15.06.2023. 4. The learned legal-aid-counsel for the applicant has submitted that the petitioner received the certified copy of the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 only on 15.07.2025 and thereafter, on being unable to pursue her case, she approached the District Legal Service Authority. Her case was referred to the Guwahati High Court Legal Service Authority and the present legal-aid counsel was appointed only on 23rd July, 2025. Thereafter, for preparing the memo of appeal, some time was consumed and in the process, 211 days of delay has occasioned. She, therefore, prays for condoning the delay. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the applicant has failed to explain the delay occasioned in filing the connected appeal. He submits that no proper explanation has been given for delay of 211 days in filing the connected appeal. He submits that the records would indicate that the present applicant appeared before the Trial Court in suc Misc. (Succession) Case No. 22/2021. However, later on, they defaulted and as such, the succession case proceeded ex-parte against them. Page No.# 3/3 6. He further submits that even the application for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was filed belatedly was without any application for condonation of delay and as such, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the said application by its order dated 19.12.2024. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the both the sides and have gone through the materials available. 8. Though, there appears to be lapses on the part of the present applicant in filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. However, considering the fact that the succession case was decreed ex-parte as well as also considering the fact that she has to take assistance of legal-aid counsel and the process adopted by the District Legal Services Authority as well as High Court Legal Service Committee consumed lot of time. As such, a liberal and justice-oriented approach is taken in this case and the delay of 211 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned. 9. The Registry is directed to register the connected appeal and list the same for admission after a week on a date to be fixed by it. 10. This interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant