Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010023882025 2025:GAU-AS:3575 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/637/2025 M S SAI CONSTRUCTION REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI GAUTOM BASU, GUHA COMPLEX, NEAR GODREJ SHOWROOM, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM VERSUS SRI MANIK NANDI S/O LATE BALORAM NANDI, HOUSE NO 26 BHASKAR NAGAR, FATASIL, GATASIL AMBARI, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM 781007 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS S DAS, MR. F E CHOUDHURY,M KHATONIAR,MR D K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A R SHOME, MS. M KUMARI,FOR CAVEATOR BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.03.2025 Heard Mr D K Das, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms M Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 63 days in preferring the connected RERA Page No.# 2/3 Appeal, against the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2024, passed by the learned Assam Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati, in REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 16/2024, by which the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2024, passed by the learned Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Assam, at Guwahati, in Complaint Case No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2023/48, is upheld. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/appellant was suffering from liver disease, and he was under treatment for which he could not file the appeal within the stipulated period and in support of his submission, he has referred to the statement and averments made in paragraph No. 3 of the application and also the medical documents enclosed in the application as Annexure-1 series and he further submits that the delay of 63 days is a bonafide one and that he has an arguable case, which is to be heard on merit. Therefore, it is contended to condone the same. 4. On the other hand, Ms M Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party has opposed in condoning the delay of 63 days. It is submitted that the delay has not been properly explained and the delay was deliberate and, therefore, it is contended to dismiss the application. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and also perused the statements and averments made in paragraph-3 of the application. 6. It appears that the applicant was suffering from chronic liver disease since last few years and the medical documents enclosed as Annexure-1 series also supported his claim. In view of the explanation, so forthcoming for the delay, this Court is of the view that the delay of 63 days is not deliberate and the same is sufficiently explained, and therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this application. Page No.# 3/3 7. The delay of 63 days in filing the connected RERA Appeal, stands condoned. 8. In terms of above, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. 9. In view of the order passed today in this interlocutory application, Registry shall register the appeal and list the same before the Court as soon as practical. JUDGE Comparing Assistant