Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010022272021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/261/2021 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3 MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA- 700071 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-5, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, GUWAHATI. VERSUS RUMA MAZUMDAR AND 2 ORS. W/O- LATE GAUTAM MAZUMDAR, R/O- VILL.- JORANGDISHA NO. 1, P.O. AND P.S. LUMDING, DIST.- HOJAI, ASSAM. 2:BANTI DEY S/o LATE BABUL CHANDRA DEY R/o VILLAGE JORANGDISHA No. 8 NEAR LUMDING BAZAR P.O/P.S. LUMDING DIST-HOJAI ASSAM 3:SAURAV MAZUMDER S/O LATE GAUTAM MAZUMDER R/O VILLAGE JORANGDISHA NO. 1 NEAR KALI MANDIR P.O/P.S. LUMDING DIST-HOJAI ASSAM 4:MISS SAGARIKA MAZUMDER D/O LATE GAUTAM MAZUMDER R/O VILLAGE JORANGDISHA NO. 1 Page No.# 2/3 NEAR KALI MANDIR P.O/P.S. LUMDING DIST-HOJAI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DUTTA, MS. P CHUTIA,MRS. D DAS BARMAN,MRS. P M DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. F A HASSAN (R-1), MD E AHMED (R-1),MR. H A TALUKDAR (R-1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 06.08.2025 Heard Ms. D.D. Barman, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. F.A. Hassan, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 2. The present interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Rule 2(2) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, is preferred by the applicant, for condoning the delay of 24 days in preferring the connected appeal, against the judgment and award dated 21.11.2019, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FT), Hojai (tribunal hereinafter), in MAC Case No. 569/2016. 3. Ms. Barman, learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to internal communication made between the applicant and its higher authority, the appeal could not be filed in time and the same is explained in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of the petition. Ms. Barman further submits that at the relevant time Covid–19 Pandemic was also prevalent and there was national wide lockdown and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and therefore, it is Page No.# 3/3 contended to allow this application. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Hassan, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that he has no objection in the event of allowing this application. 5. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the explanation so forthcoming in the statements and averments made in the paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of the application, this court is inclined to condone the said delay. 6. Accordingly, the same stands condoned. 7. In terms of above, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. 8. Now, the registry shall register the connected appeal and list the same before the court as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant