Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010007722013 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MC/1651/2013 LABANYA RAJBONGSHI, S/O LATE NABIN RAJBONGSHI, R/O MURARA, WARD NO. 8, P.O. RANGIA, P.S. RANGIA, DIST. KAMRUP R, ASSAM. VERSUS THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. and 5 ORS, BONGAIGAON DAVISON, BONGAIGAON, POLICY NO. 530300/31/04/00138 VALID UPTO 17-04-2005, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., N.E.R.O., G.S.ROAD, BONGAIGAON,GUWAHATI-5 2:THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. RANGIA BRANCH POLICY NO. 130207/31/04/02231 VALID UPTO 06/01/2006 REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. GUWAHATI-5 4:MRS. GYANANDA DEKA RAJBONGSHI W/O SRI LABANYA RAJBONGSHI R/O MURARA WORD NO. 8 P.O. RANGIA P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM OWNER OF THE VEHICEL NO. AS-01R/5001 5:MD. BABUL ALI S/OMD. FAZAR ALI VILL. MALEGARH P.S. JOGIGHOPA DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM D/L NO. 5970/BNG/PROFF/F VALID UP TO 04-06-2006 DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-25C/ 201 Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M KALITA, MD S ULLAH,MR S C PANDIT,MR.J KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : MR.U K DUTTA, MRN BHUYAN,MR.A TALUKDAR(R- 1(I)),MR.A PHUKAN,MS.L SHARMA(R-1(I)),MR.M H TALUKDAR,MR.M AHMED,MR.J JOHN(R-1(I)),MR.K BORA,MR.K BARMAN,MR.K K BHATTA(R-1(I)),MR.A BHARALI,MR.N AHMED,MR.A J SAIKIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 06.01.2025 Heard Mr. S.C. Pandit, learned counsel for the applicant; Ms. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1(i); and Mr. S. Pegu, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1(ii). 2. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant for condoning the delay of 253 days in preferring the connected appeal. 3. Mr. Pandit, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was communication gap between the applicant and the engaged counsel and for quite some time the counsel for the applicant was suffering from illness and therefore, the appeal could not be preferred in time and that the same has sufficiently been explained in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of the application and therefore, it is contended to allow this application. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1(i) and Mr. S. Pegu, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1(ii) submits that they have no objection in the event of allowing this application by condoning the delay of 253 days in preferring the connected appeal by the applicant. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and Page No.# 3/3 also perused the statements as well as the averments made in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of the application. 6. It appears that the delay of 253 days in preferring the connected appeal is not intentional rather it is circumstantial and the same has sufficiently been explained in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of the application. 7. Therefore, this court is inclined to allow this application and accordingly, the delay of 253 days in preferring the connected appeal, stands condoned. 8. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. 9. Now, the Registry shall register the appeal and list the same before the court as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant