Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010167562026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2797/2026 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE, A25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110002, AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER. VERSUS SRI ANJAN BORAH AND ANR. S/O - LATE NOGENDRA NATH BORAH, R.O- PURNA AMOLAPATTY, P.O.- GOLAGHAT, P.S.- GOLAGHAT, DIST.- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM PIN-785621 (BROTHER OF LATE ANGSHUMAN BORAH) 2:SRI DIPU SARMAH S/O- LATE ANIL SARMAH R/O- OLD AMULAPATTY WARD NO-2 P.O.- GOLAGHAT DIST.- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785621 OWNER CUM DRIVER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE NO. AS- 05/D-573 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M CHOUDHURY, MR SISHIR DUTTA,S K BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : , WITH MAC App. Case No. 949/2018(D/O) In Page No.# 2/4 Review Pet. Case No. 9681/2026 WITH Review Pet. Case No. 9681/2026 (filing number) ------------ Advocate for : MAMANI CHOUDHURY Advocate for : appearing for SRI ANJAN BORAH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 19.08.2026 [1] Heard Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Baruah, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1. [2] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the opposite party No. 2 is the owner- cum-driver of the offending vehicle and since the claimant has already been represented in this interlocutory application, the presence of opposite party No. 2 may not be required in this interlocutory application. [3] Hence, she prays for striking out the name of the opposite party No. 2. [4] The prayer is allowed. [5] This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant/insurance company under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay Page No.# 3/4 of 43 days in preferring the review petition, wherein, the review of judgment dated 25.05.2026, passed by this court in MAC Appeal No. 949/2018 has been prayed for. [6] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the ground for delay has been stated in paragraph No. 3 of the instant interlocutory application. [7] The learned senior counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has submitted that she does not have any objection considering the grounds stated in the interlocutory application against the prayer for condonation of delay. [8] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application. [9] The grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application may be regarded as sufficient cause which prevented the present applicant in preferring the connected review application within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, the delay of 43 days in preferring the connected review application is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed. [10] Registry is directed to register the connected review application and list the same in Orders column on 8th September, 2026. Page No.# 4/4 [11] The name of Ms. R. Choudhury and Ms. P. Baruah may be reflected in the cause-list as engaged counsel for the respondent No. 1 henceforth. JUDGE Comparing Assistant