Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010010352023 2025:GAU-AS:1388 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/189/2023 MD. HARMUZ ALI PRAMANIK S/O LT. KAIRUDDIN PRAMANIK, VILL. MANIPUR, PART-I MAKRIJHORA, PO. MAKRIJHORA, PS. BAGRIBARI, DIST. KOKRAJHAR (ERSTWHILE DHUBRI), ASSAM, PIN- 783349. VERSUS MD. SAFIUDDUN SARKAR AND 4 ORS S/O- LATE MOKRAM ALI BEPARI, VILL.- MAKRIJHORA, VILL.- MANIPUR, PART-I MAKRIJHORA, P.O. MAKRIJHORA, P.S. BAGRIBARI, DIST. KOKRAJHAR (ERSTWHILE DHUBRI), PIN- 7833492. 2:MD. ABDUL MAZID AHMED S/O- MD. NASIRUDDIN AHMED VILL.- MANIPUR PART-I MAKRIJHORA P.S. BAGRIBARI DIST. KOKRAJHAR (ERSTWHILE DHUBRI) PIN- 783349 ASSAM 3:ANIL KR. SAHA S/O- LATE SATISH CH. SAHA VILL.- BAGRIBARI ARAIANI P.O. AND P.S. BAGRIBARI DIST. KOKRAJHAR PIN- 783349. 4:STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR DHUBRI. Page No.# 2/4 5:SETTLEMENT OFFICER DHUBRI P.O. AND P.S. DHUBRI PIN- 783301 For the applicant (s) : Mr. S. K. Ghosh, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. B. K. Sen, Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 10.02.2025 Heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. Mr. B. K. Sen, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 232 days in filing the application under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure for readmission of the Appeal which was dismissed for default vide the order dated 14.12.2021. 3. This Court has duly taken note of the reasons which have been assigned in the instant application wherein it has been mentioned that the earlier counsel who was engaged in the matter was elevated as the Judge of this Court. Thereupon, Page No.# 3/4 another senior Advocate Mr. G. P. Bhowmik was engaged who was also expired during the COVID period and subsequently Mr. S. K. Ghosh, the learned counsel was engaged in the matter on 14.12.2021. However, on 14.12.2021, when the matter was called for the learned counsel could not be present on the ground that he was hospitalized on account of gallbladder stone operation. To that effect, an additional affidavit has been filed bringing on record the medical certificate. It has also been stated that the counsel was not aware thereupon as regards the order dated 14.12.2021 and subsequently on making repeated searches it could be found on 14.09.2022 that the accompanying Appeal was dismissed for default. It is under such circumstances, the delay of 232 days occurred in filing the application for restoration of the Appeal which was dismissed for non- prosecution. 4. This Court has also perused the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the opposite party No.1 wherein various objections have been raised. Taking into account the reasons stated in the application accompanied by the additional affidavit which has been filed wherein the medical certificate has been enclosed of the counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has been able to make out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 232 days in filing the application for restoration of the Appeal which was Page No.# 4/4 dismissed for default. 5. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant