Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010036712023 2025:GAU-AS:5309 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/55/2023 RANJU ROY AND 3 ORS. S/O RAJIB ROY, VILL.- KALINAGAR, PART- III P.S. PANCHGRAM, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. 2: NAVO KUMAR ROY S/O RAJIB ROY VILL.- KALINAGAR PART- III P.S. PANCHGRAM DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 3: SABUJ ROY S/O RAJIB ROY VILL.- KALINAGAR PART- III P.S. PANCHGRAM DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 4: NIRANJAN ROY S/O RAJIB ROY VILL.- KALINAGAR PART- III P.S. PANCHGRAM DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM VERSUS SAMIRAN DEY S/O LATE SUDHANYA KUMAR DEY, VILL.- KALINAGAR, PART- III P.S. PANCHGRAM, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MS. S DASGUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY, MS S.S.BORA,MR. S D PURKAYASTHA,MS E NATH,MR D DAS,MR T MEELEE,MR. C CHAKRAVARTY,MR. R HAZARIKA,MR. S SARMA BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 28.04.2025 Heard Ms S Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr S D Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent. 2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to challenge the order dated 12.01.2023, passed in Misc (J) Case No. 36 of 2022, whereby the learned Court of Civil Judge, Hailakandi, who is the First Appellate Court, had condoned the delay in filing the said review application. 3. This Court had duly perused the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which is Annexure-8 to the instant proceedings and from a perusal of the said petition, it is seen that pursuant to the liberty granted by this court, vide order dated 03.01.2022, in RSA No. 87/2021, the review application was filed before the Learned First Appellate Court, stating, inter alia, that the said review application could not be filed within one month from 03.01.2022, on account of the respondent’s age-old health issues. It is further seen from a perusal of the impugned order that the Learned First Appellate Court has duly considered the application, seeking condonation of delay and in its discretion Page No.# 3/3 has found sufficient reason, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. Considering the above, the discretion so exercised by the Learned First Appellate Court, i.e., the Court of the Civil Judge, Hailakandi, was in consonance with the provisions of law, and there appears to be no perversity, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the said, for which the instant petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 6,000/-. 5. The said amount of Rs. 6,000/-, be deposited by the petitioners herein, before the Learned First Appellate Court. The respondent herein, who is the appellant/the review petitioner would be at liberty to file an application, before the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Hailakandi, for withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 6,000/-, and the learned Court shall pass appropriate orders. 6. Taking into account that both the parties are duly represented, they are directed to appear before the learned Court of the Civil Judge, at Hailakandi (the First Appellate Court), on 19th of May, 2025, for further continuation of the proceedings of the review application filed by the respondent herein. JUDGE Comparing Assistant