Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8117 (GAU)

SRI BAPAN MANDAL AND ANR v. SRI PINUJ KUMAR MANDAL

I.A.(Civil)/1082/2025 · 2025-10-21

Budi Habung

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010038012025 2025:GAU-AS:13999 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1082/2025 SRI BAPAN MANDAL AND ANR S/O- SUNIL MANDAL, R/O- VILLAGE-GARAJAN, P/S-RUPAHIHAT, DIST-NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782125 2: SRI NIKHIL MANDAL S/O- LATE NISHI KANTA MANDAL R/O-VILLAGE-GARAJAN P/S-RUPAHIHAT DIST-NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78212 VERSUS SRI PINUJ KUMAR MANDAL S/O- MANORANJAN MANDAL, R/O- VILLAGE-GARAJAN, P/S-RUPAHIHAT, DIST-NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782125 2:SRI MANORANJAN MANDAL S/O- LATE NABADEEP MANDAL RO- GARAJAN PS- RUPAHIHAT DIST-NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D ROY, Advocate for the Respondent : MR S J SHAMIM (R-1), MRS. R MOMTAZ(R-1),ALHAJJ I UDDIN(R-1) Page No.# 2/3 Linked Case : BAPAN MANDAL AND ANR. VERSUS PINUJ KUMAR MANDAL AND ANR. ------------ Advocate for : MR. S D ROY Advocate for : appearing for PINUJ KUMAR MANDAL AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 22.10.2025 Heard Mr. S. D. Roy, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. R. Hoque, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay of 113 days in filling the connected revision petition against the order dated 27.05.2024, passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagaon, in T. S. Case No. 310/2023. 3. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the grounds for the delay in filing the connected revision petition have been explained in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 12 of the delay condonation petition. Page No.# 3/3 4. Upon considering the explanations provided in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court is satisfied that the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the revision petition within the stipulated time. Moreover, the respondent has raised no objection to the condonation of delay. 5. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, the interlocutory application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the delay of 113 days in preferring the connected revision petition stands condoned. 6. The Registry is directed to register the connected Civil Revision Petition and list the same for admission hearing in its usual course. 7. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of in terms above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant