Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010073422026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1349/2026 MRINAL JYOTI DAS S/O DINABANDHU DAS, R/O MAJARHATI, BARPETA TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- BARPETA, DISTRICT - BARPETA, PIN- VERSUS GOPAL RATHI S/O SRI HANUMAN PRASAD RATHI, R/O BIRPARA, P.O. - BIRAPARA, DISTRICT - JALPAIGURI, WEST BENGAL, PIN - Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B J GHOSH, MR. DILIP DEY Advocate for the Respondent : MS. BIPASHA MRUG, Linked Case : ITREF(A)/0/0 SRI MRINAL JYOTI DAS S/O. DINABANDHU DAS R/O. MAJARHATI BARPETA TOWN P.O. P.S. BARPETA DISTRICT - BARPETA PIN VERSUS Page No.# 2/2 SRI GOPAL RATHI S/O - SRI HANUMAN PRASAD RATHI R/O - BIRPARA P.O. -BIRAPARA DISTRICT - JALPAIGURI WEST BANGEL ------------ Advocate for : MD TAIZUDDIN SK Advocate for : appearing for SRI GOPAL RATHI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 12-08-2026 Heard Mr. D. Dey, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. B. Mrug, learned counsel representing the respondent. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay of 226 days in preferring the connected appeal. Ms. Mrug has submitted that delay has not been satisfactorily explained. According to her, the certified copy of the judgment was obtained immediately after passing of the order but after that no action was taken by the applicant to file the appeal. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. This Court is of the opinion that the court is not required to take very strict approach in dealing with this matter. This court further opines that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the delay stands condoned. The connected appeal shall be registered and listed for admission hearing. Then present interlocutory application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant