Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010063142024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/969/2024 SRI OM PRAKASH KHOKOLIA and ORS S/O LATE GORDHANDAS KHAKOLIA, R/O J.N. ROAD, FANCY BAZAR, GUWAHATI-781001. 2.1: ON THE DEATH OF SMT. PARBAI DEVI KHAKOLIA HER LEGAL HEIRS SRI AMIT KHAKOLIA S/O LATE PARBATI DEVI KHAKHOLIA AND OM PRAKASH KHAKHOLIA R/O DWARKADHEESH BUILDING A.T. ROAD NEAR RAILWAY GATE NO.5 BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI 781009 DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM. 2.2: SRI ASHISH KHAKHOLIA S/O LATE PARBATI DEVI KHAKHOLIA AND OM PRAKASH KHAKHOLIA R/O HOUSE NO. 09 JAI NARAYAN ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM. 2.3: SMT. ARCHANA AGARWAL D/O LATE PARBATI DEVI KHAKHOLIA W/O NIRAJ AGARWAL BINOD AUTO AGENCIES OPPOSITE MAHABIR BHAWAN A.T. ROAD GUWAHATI 781001 Page No.# 2/3 DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM. 3: RAJ KUMAR BHARTIA HUF A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTA DR. RAJKUMAR BHARTIA R/O PANBAZAR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS MD RAIFUDDIN AHMED @ RICKBABA and ORS S/O MD. MOHIN AHMED, R/O SARUMOTORIA, MOHIN AHMED BUILDING, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM. 2:KANAKESWAR GOGOI S/O SRI BUDHU RAM GOGOI R/O SARUMOTORIA BEHIND DOWN TOWN HOSPITAL GUWAHATI 781006 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D MOZUMDER, MS D DEVI,MR. S BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P GOHAIN, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 25.06.2025 Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicants and also heard Mr. G. Imtiaz, learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties. 2. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Page No.# 3/3 is preferred by the applicants, for condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the setting aside abatement petition. 3. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the pendency of the RSA No. 6/2015, the appellant No. 2, Smti Parbati Devi Khakolia, passed away on 11.09.2023, and due to lack of knowledge about the requirement of substitution, and also information regarding the death of appellant No.2, not being made available in time, the petitioner could not be filed in time and the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and under such circumstances, he has contended to allow this application. 4. On the other hand Mr. Imtiaz, submits that he has no objection in the event of allowing this application. 5. Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also taking note of the ground of delay, so explained in the application, this Court is of the view that the delay is sufficiently explained and accordingly this application stands allowed. 6. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant