Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010043042025 2025:GAU-AS:11910 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1080/2025 ON THE DEATH OF LOKO RAM DAS @ LOKESWAR DAS, HIS LEGAL HEIR, HAREN CHANDRA DAS AND 4 ORS. R/O VILL- BHATIKURUWA, MOUZA- SIPAJHAR, P.O.- KURUWA, P.S.- SIPAJHAR, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM 2.1: PRADIP DAS S/O LATE BHOGESWAR DAS R/O VILL- BHATIKURUWA MOUZA- SIPAJHAR P.O.- KURUWA P.S.- SIPAJHAR DIST- DARRANG ASSAM 2.2: KAMAL DAS S/O LATE BHOGESWAR DAS R/O VILL- BHATIKURUWA MOUZA- SIPAJHAR P.O.- KURUWA P.S.- SIPAJHAR DIST- DARRANG ASSAM 2.3: DIPAK DAS S/O LATE BHOGESWAR DAS R/O VILL- BHATIKURUWA MOUZA- SIPAJHAR P.O.- KURUWA P.S.- SIPAJHAR DIST- DARRANG ASSAM 3: ON THE DEATH OF NRIPEN DAS @ BABUL DAS HIS LEGAL HEIR Page No.# 2/3 BIPLOBJYOTI DAS R/O VILL- BHATIKURUWA MOUZA- SIPAJHAR P.O.- KURUWA P.S.- SIPAJHAR DIST- DARRANG ASSA VERSUS TANKESWAR DAS AND ANR SON OF LATE PHULESWAR DAS, R/O VILL- BHATI KURUWA, P.O.- KURUWA, P.S.- SIPAJHAR, MOUZA- SIPAJHAR, DIST- DARRANG, PIN- 784145, ASSAM 2:ON THE DEATH OF MRS. KAMESWARI DAS HER LEGAL HEIR BUPEN DAS SON OF LATE KAMESWARI DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHATI KURUA P.O.- KURUA P.S.-SIPAJHAR MOUZA-SIPAJHAR DISTRICT- DARRANG PIN-784145 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K BHUYAN, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N M DUTTA, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 03-09-2025 Learned counsel Mr. A Singh is present for the applicants, who have filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with prayer for condonation of delay of 687 (Six Hundred and Eighty Seven) days in preferring the substitution petition for deceased respondent No. 2 i.e. Late Kameswari Das, Page No.# 3/3 who died on 10.01.2023 leaving behind her son Sri Bupen Das as her legal heir and successor. 2. Learned counsel Mr. N.M. Dutta is present for the respondent No. 1 and has raised no objection. 3. It is submitted that the applicants/appellants were not aware of the death of the respondent No. 2, which resulted in the delay. 4. It appears that there is no malafide or laches on the part of the applicants. Sufficient grounds have also been shown. Thereby, the delay is condoned in preferring the substitution application of the deceased respondent No. 2. 5. In terms of the above observation, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant