Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010011042020 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/112/2020 in MACApp./84/2014 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE, A-25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110002, AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7, REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER. VERSUS SRI SANJAY JAIN AND 6 ORS. S/O- LATE SAGAR MAL JAIN, R/O- PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781008, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM. 2:SRI RAJESH JAIN S/O- LATE SAGAR MAL JAIN R/O- PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781008 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 3:SMT. NIRMALA DEVI JAIN W/O- SRI SAMPAT LAL JAIN R/O- PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781008 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 4:SMT. SUMAN DEVI JAIN W/O- SRI DILIP JAIN R/O- P.O. SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 5:SMT. KUSUM DEVI JAIN W/O- LATE PAWAN JAIN R/O- ATHGAON GUWAHATI- 781008 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 6:SRI BIPLAV JAIN S/O- LATE PAWAN JAIN R/O- ATHGAON GUWAHATI- 781008 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 7:SMT. AMRITA JAIN D/O- LATE PAWAN JAIN R/O- ATHGAON GUWAHATI- 781008 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MR. S DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B K JAIN, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 27.08.2025 Heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. K. Bora, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Shri B.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 7 as well as Shri R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no.9. This is an application for condonation of delay of 105 days in preferring a review against the judgment and order dated 13.02.2019 passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 84/2014. Page No.# 3/3 The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the petition and has submitted that because of reasons which were beyond the control of the applicant, the delay has occasioned. Both Shri Jain and Shri Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that they would not have serious opposition on the aspect of condonation of delay but has submitted that the review is not maintainable. It is a settled position of law that the application for condonation of delay are to be considered in a pragmatic and justice oriented approach. At the same time, this Court is also required to take into consideration that a litigant is required to be vigilant so that third party rights are not created in the meantime. Be that as it may, after perusal of the grounds of condonation, the instant application for condonation of delay is allowed. The application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant