Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7553 (GAU)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. SATISH KAIBORTA AND ORS

I.A.(Civil)/2147/2025 · 2025-08-19

Budi Habung

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010030762025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2147/2025 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI. VERSUS SATISH KAIBORTA AND ORS S/O SRI KALO KOYBARTA @ KOLO KOIBARTA VILL.- NAHIRA KULDUNG P.O.- NAHIRA P.S.- PALASHBARI DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781132. 2:ON THE DEATH OF SRI PARESH KAIBORTA HIS LEGAL HEIRS 2.1:MANOJ KAIBARTA SON RESIDENT OF VILL.- NAHIRA KULDUNG P.O.- NAHIRA P.S.- PALASHBARI DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781132. Page No.# 2/3 2.2:SAKTI KAIBARTA SON RESIDENT OF VILL.- NAHIRA KULDUNG P.O.- NAHIRA P.S.- PALASHBARI DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781132. 3:SRI APURBA KALITA S/O SRI TARUN KALITA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARTEZPUR PS PALASHBARI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM 781128 4:SRI BINANDA NATH S/O LATE RAM NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAMALPUR PS KAMALPUR DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM 781352 ------------ Advocate for : MR. R GOSWAMI Advocate for : MR. H GOGOI appearing for SATISH KAIBORTA AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 20.08.2025 Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Ms. P. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. It is submitted that during the pendency of the instant appeal, the respondent No.2, passed away on 23.04.2023. However, the applicant has filed the condonation petition only after 512 days. Page No.# 3/3 By filing this application, the applicant seeks setting aside the abatement and for substitution of the legal heirs of the respondent No.2, Sri Paresh Kaiborta in MACApp No. 459/2023. Ms. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, has no objection for setting aside the abatement and for substitution of the legal heirs of respondent No.2. Accordingly, the abatement of the appeal is set aside for the ends of justice and allowed the substitution of the legal heirs of the respondent No.2 (since deceased). With the above the I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant