Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010037952025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1258/2025 KOUSHALLYA KURMI @ KEIKEI KURMI AND 3 ORS W/O LATE NARESH KURMI 2: PROTAP KURMI S/O LATE NARESH KURMI 3: RAJ KUMAR KURMI S/O LATE NARESH KURMI 4: JOY KUMAR KURMI S/O LATE NARESH KURMI ALL ARE R/O AENAKHAL TEA ESTATE P.O. MONACHERRA P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI VERSUS BHUWALKA TRADING AD TEA CO.(P) LTD AENAKHAL TEA CO. WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 135, BIPLABI RASH BEHARI BASU ROAD, KOLKATA 700001 AND CARRYING BUSINESS INTER ALIA AS OWNER OF AENAKHAL TEA ESTATE, P.O. MONACHERRA, P.S. LALA, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, SRI SUMANTA CHOUDHURY, AENAKHAL TEA ESTATE. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. J SARMA,MS S SIDDIQUA,MR. A IKBAL Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M SHARMA, FOR CAVEATOR,MS. S YASMIN Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 23.07.2025 Heard Ms. J. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This application, under Order 41 Rule 3(A), read with Section 151 of the CPC, is preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 212 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi, in Title Appeal No. 3/2023. 3. Ms. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No. 1 is a 87 years old lady and she has been suffering from old age ailments, and besides, her family is not financially sound, and also there was some miscommunication between the earlier set of counsel after dismissal of the title appeal, and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial, and therefore, it is contended to condone the same. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the opposite party has filed objection in condoning the delay as the delay has not been properly explained and the medical documents are also of 2025, whereas the judgment and decree was passed on 21.03.2024, and as such, Mr. Sharma submits that the delay has not been sufficiently explained, 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 Page No.# 3/3 record. 6. It appears that the applicants have enclosed some medical documents with the application as Annexure-I series at page Nos. 11 to 17, and perusal of the said documents goes to show that the applicant No. 1 is suffering from some ailments. Further, in the application, it is stated that the applicants are not financially sound and also there was miscommunication between the applicants and the earlier set of counsel, and as such, there was delay in filing the connected appeal. 7. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also considering the statements and averments made in the application, and the medical documents enclosed with the application, this Court is of the view that the delay of 212 days has sufficiently been explained. And accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow this application. The delay of 212 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned. 8. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. 9. In view of the order passed in this interlocutory application, now the Registry shall proceed to register the connected appeal and thereafter, list the same before this Court as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant