DIPENDRA DEB AND ANR v. ON THE DEATH OF RATINDRA DEB HIS LEGAL HEIRS PINKI PAUL BHOWMICK AND ORS
I.A.(Civil)/653/2025 · 2025-03-23
Robin Phukan
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 8632 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 8632 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010045592025
2025:GAU-AS:3282
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/653/2025 DIPENDRA DEB AND ANR S/O LT HARIPADA DEB R/O VILL SHYAMA PRASAD PUR PO AYLABARI PS AND DIST KARIMGANJ VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF RATINDRA DEB HIS LEGAL HEIRS PINKI PAUL BHOWMICK AND ORS 1.1 PINKI PAUL BHOWMIK (DEB), R/O VILL KAMALPUR P.O-AMBARKHANA P.O AND DIST-SRIBHUMI 2:1.1PINKI PAUL BHOWMIK (DEB) D/O- LATE RATINDRA DEB 3:1.2 TINKI BHOWAL (DEB) D/O- LATE RATINDRA DEB 4:1.3 CHUMKI DAS (DEB) D/O- LATE RATINDRA DEB 5:1.4 MOUSUMI DEY (DEB) D/O- LATE RATINDRA DEB 6:1.5 LOVELY PAUL DEB D/O- LATE RATINDRA DEB
ALL ARE R/O- VILLAGE KAMALPUR
P.O- AMBARKHANA
P.S AND DIST- SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ)
Page No.# 2/5 7:2 ON THE DEATH OF MONINDRA DEB HIS LEGAL HEIRS 2.1 RANJAN DEB S/O- LATE MONINDRA DEB 8:2.1 SOMA DEB D/O- LATE MONINDRA DEB BOTH REP. NO-2.1 AND 2.2 ARE R/O VILL- KAMALPUR P.O- AMBARKHANA
P.S AND DIST- SRIBHUMI 9:3. SOLAI DEB S/O- LATE ROSHOMOY DEB R/O VILL- KAMALPUR P.O- AMBARKHANA
P.S AND DIST- SRIBHUMI 10:RAM DEB S/O- LATE ROSHOMOY DEB R/O VILL- KAMALPUR P.O- AMBARKHANA
P.S AND DIST- SRIBHUMI 11:LAKHAN DEB S/O- LATE ROSHOMOY DEB R/O VILL- KAMALPUR P.O- AMBARKHANA
P.S AND DIST- SRIBHUMI 12:ARCHANA RANI DEB W/O- LATE RATAN DEB 13:MOHAN DEB S/O- LATE RATAN DEB 14:MAMATA DEB S/O- LATE RATAN DEB 15:MINTU DAS S/O- LATE MANORANJAN DAS 16:REBA DAS D/O- LATE MANORANJAN DAS 17:RUMA RANI DAS
Page No.# 3/5 D/O- LATE MANORANJAN DAS
RESPONDENT NO 12 TO 17 ARE R/O- SHYAMA PRASAD ROAD P.O P.S AND DIST- KARIMGANJ 18:MANORANJAN DAS HUSBAND OF LATE REKHA RANI DAS 19:NARAYAN DAS S/O- LATE MANORANJAN DAS
RESPONDENT NO 18 TO 19 ARE R/O- SHYAMA PRASAD ROAD P.O P.S AND DIST- KARIMGAN Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B. HAZARIKA, MS. R CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : RSA/123/2010 JITENDRA DEB and 4 ORS 2: DWIJENDRA DEB 3: RABINDRA DEB 4: DIPENDRA DEB ALL ARE SONS OF LATE HARIPADA DEB OF VILL. SHYAMA PRASAD PUR P.O AYLABARI P.S. and DIST. KARIMGANJ 5: MAYA RANI DEB D/O LATE HARIPADA DEB W/O SHRI NAREHS BISWAS OF VILL. BADARPUR GHAT CHOWRANGI P.O. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ. VERSUS RATINDRA DEB and 12 ORS 2:MONINDRA DEB 3:SOLAI DEB
Page No.# 4/5 4:RAM DEB 5:LAKBAN DEB ALL ARE SONS OF LATE RASHOMOY DEB OF VILL. KAMALPUR P.O. AMBARKHANA P.S. and DIST. KARIMGANJ.
6:ARCHANA RANI DEB W/O LATE RATAN DEB. 7:MOHAN DEB S/O LATE RATAN DEB. 8:SMTI MAMATA DEB D/O LATE RATAN DEB. 9:MINTU DAS S/O LATE MONORANJAN DAS 10:SMTI REBA DAS D/O MONOANJAN DAS. 11:SMTI RUMA RANI DAS D/O MONORANJAN DAS. 12:MONORANJAN DAS HUSBAND OF REKHA RANI DAS. 13:NARAYAN DAS S/O MONORANJAN DAS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SHYAMA PRASAD ROAD P.O. and P.S. and DIST. KARIMGANJ. ------------ Advocate for : MR.H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for : MS.L DAS appearing for RATINDRA DEB and 12 ORS
Page No.# 5/5
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 24.03.2025 Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. S. Das Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is preferred for condonation of delay of 88 days in filing the petition for substitution of the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1, in RSA No. 123/2010. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that respondent No.1, in RSA No. 123/2010, suffered demised on 03.09.2024, leaving behind his legal heirs and there is delay of 88 days in filing the substitution petition and the delay is not intentional and therefore, it is contended to condone the same. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that she has no objection in the event of condonation of delay of 88 days in filing the substitution of petition. Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to allow this application for condonation of delay 88 days in filing the substitution petition of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.1, is hereby by condoned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant