Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040003682025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/18/2025 Smti Laxmi Welly Wife of Shri Debia Tayo, a resident of Village Amba, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Smti Taba Michiri Wife of Dr Balang Lamgu, a resident of Village Midpu, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : N Rama, Tacha Noma,Dindo Boni,Teshi Aaku,T Rahul,N Kuma,N Kanu,P Tatam Advocate for the Respondent : S K Sharma, Dorjee Phinjo Sona,1 R Singhi,H.Dirchi,Mukesh Prasad,Jumnya Rina,Bedanta Kaushik :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG Date of hearing: 24.09.2025 Date of Judgment: 08.10.2025 ORDER(CAV) Heard Mr. N. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S.K. Sharma learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia, in I.A.88/24 in Money Suit No. 41/2024 whereby the petitioner’s application seeking condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the suit Page No.# 2/3 was rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filling of this petition is that the petitioner had advanced money to the respondent for consideration of a plot of land at Lekha village, Doimukh on 19.6.2021 and 09.7.2021. However, the sale transaction could not be materialized as a result the respondent was to repay the money back to the petitioner. On failure to repay, the petitioner instituted a money suit before the Civil Judge. The statutory limitation period of three years expired in the meantime. The suit was, however, filed after 49 days delay, along with an application seeking condonation of delay. 4. The petitioner contended that there was no intentional delay and relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Misc. Application No. 29 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022, submitting that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is liable to be excluded, and therefore, the suit is within limitation. 5. The respondent opposed the application contending that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to appeals and applications, not to institution of suits, and that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not apply to the present case since the limitation period for the petitioner commenced only after 18.06.2021, i.e. after the Covid-19 excluded period. 6. The learned Civil Judge, upon hearing the parties, rejected the application holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to institution of suits. 7. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties and considered. 8. It is well settled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to suits, and therefore, no application for condonation of delay in filing a suit is maintainable. The rejection of the petitioner’s application by the Civil Judge on this ground cannot be faulted. Page No.# 3/3 9. As regards the reliance placed by the petitioner on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra), the said order excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of computing limitation in respect of all proceedings. Further directions were given that where the limitation would have expired during the said period, a fresh period of 90 days commencing from 01.03.2022 would be available, subject to longer balance periods where applicable. 10. In the present case, the cause of action arose on 19.06.2021 and the prescribed period of limitation expired on 18.06.2024, which is well after the excluded period notified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner, therefore, cannot derive any benefit from the Supreme Court’s order since the limitation available to him was not curtailed by the pandemic period. 11. Accordingly, the money suit filed after 18.06.2024 was clearly barred by limitation, and the petitioner cannot claim exclusion of time under the Supreme Court’s Suo-Motu orders. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Civil Judge rejecting the petitioner’s application. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant