Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4759 (GAU)

Sarfow Desisow v. Miss Kusum Jaboju

IA(C)/161/2024 · 2025-01-22

Mridul Kumar Kalita

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC040011982024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/161/2024 Sarfow Desisow Son of Shri Manwang Desisow, resident of Thrizino village, PO and PS Thrizino, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Miss Kusum Jaboju Daughter of Late Thongling Jaboju, Kaya Valley Village, PO and PS Thrizino, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Rinchin Ledo Thungon, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 23.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. L. Thungon, learned counsel for the applicant who submits that by order dated 10.01.2025, the notices issued to respondent No. 1 has already been deemed to be duly served and, therefore, prays for hearing the condonation of delay application. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant, namely, Sarfow Desisow praying for Page No.# 2/2 condoning the delay of 48 days in preferring the connected appeal by which the judgment and order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Bomdila in Divorce Suit No. 13/2022 has been impugned. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as the applicant lost contact with his earlier engaged counsel, hence, he was not aware about the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 and about the same, he came to know only in the month of July, 2024. It is also submitted that thereafter in the month of July, 2024, the applicant suffered an ankle injury which took almost 20 days to heal which further added to the delay in preferring the present appeal. 4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as other grounds mentioned in Paragraph Nos. 4 to 7 of the condonation of the delay application, this Court is of considered opinion that the delay of 48 days in preferring the connected appeal has been sufficiently explained by the applicant, therefore, the said delay of 48 days is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is accordingly allowed. 5. List the connected RFA in admission column on 27th of January, 2025. JUDGE Comparing Assistant