Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010064732026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1137/2026 NARESWAR BORO AND 3 ORS. SON OF LATE RAJEN BORO, RESIDENT OF BHETAPARA, RAJENDRA COLONY, P.O.- BELTOLA, P.S.- BASISTHA, GUWAHATI- 781028 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: SMTI BINU BORO WIFE OF LATE BIREN BORO RESIDENT OF BHETAPARA RAJENDRA COLONY P.O.- BELTOLA P.S.- BASISTHA GUWAHATI- 781028 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3: KUSHAL BORO SON OF LATE BIREN BORO RESIDENT OF BHETAPARA RAJENDRA COLONY P.O.- BELTOLA P.S.- BASISTHA GUWAHATI- 781028 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 4: SMTI BHARATI BORO WIFE OF LATE KARNESWAR BORO RESIDENT OF BHETAPARA RAJENDRA COLONY P.O.- BELTOLA P.S.- BASISTHA GUWAHATI- 781028 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS Page No.# 2/5 RABIN BORO SON OF LATE BABUL BORO, RESIDENT OF RUDRESHWAR, MINI STADIUM, GELAPUKHARI, NORTH GUWAHATI, DISTRICT - KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN CODE - 781030. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R K MOUR, K MAINUDDIN,MS N BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B PHUKAN, Linked Case : OC/0/0 SRI NARESWAR BORO SON OF LATE RAJEN BORO 2: SMTI BINU BORO WIFE OF LATE BIREN BORO 3: SRI KUSHAL BORO SON OF LATE BIREN BORO 4: SMTI BHARATI BORO WIFE OF LATE KARNESWAR BORO ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BHETAPARA RAJENDRA COLONY P.O.-BELTOLA P.S.- BASISTHA GUWAHATI-781028 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS SHRI RABIN BORO SON OF LATE BABUL BORO RESIDENT OF RUDRESHWAR MINI STADIUM GELAPUKHARI NORTH GUWAHATI DISTRICT - KAMRUP RURAL ASSAM PIN CODE - 781030. Page No.# 3/5 ------------ Advocate for : MS. NAMRATA BARUAH Advocate for : appearing for SHRI RABIN BORO BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 24.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. RK Mour, the learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. B Phukan, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. 2. This Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been preferred by the applicants for condoning the delay of 129 days in filing the connected appeal against the order, wherein the order 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc (J) Case No. 46/2024 arising out of TS No. 25/2024 has been impugned. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that though after passing of the impugned order, the present applicants had instructed their engaged counsel, namely, Pankaj Das to prepare memo of appeal and file the same, however, for considerable time the engaged counsel did not take any steps for preparation of memo of appeal. As such, the applicants had to engaged another counsel and instruct him to prepare memo of appeal and in the process, delay of 129 days occurred and the appeal only being filed on 26.03.2025. 4. He submits that the delay cased in filing the connected appeal was occasioned because of the lapse committed by the engaged counsel for the present Page No.# 4/5 applicants, namely, Pankaj Das. He submits that the applicants were not at fault and the delay occasioned in this case was not intentional and there was no malafide on the part of the present applicants. 5. On the other hand, Mr. B Phukan, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party has objected to the prayer of condonation of delay of 129 days. He submits that the delay of 129 days has not been properly explained by the applicants by giving sufficient reasons for the same. He submits that only one hand the applicants have stated it is on 19.11.2025 the applicants have engaged Mr. Pankaj Das and his associates, whereas on the other hand, it is also stated in the application that on 18.08.2025 after passing of the impugned order, the applicants took advice from the engaged counsel, Mr. Pankaj Das and requested him to prepare the necessary appeal. He further submits that in the instant case even the certified copy of the impugned order was applied for on 06.11.2025 i.e. almost after lapse of three months from the date of the passing of the impugned order. He, therefore, submits that the applicants have malafidely caused delay in preferring the connected appeal and have failed to explain the reason for delay. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel and also gone through the material on records. 7. In this case, it appears that the statement made in the instant application, which is supported by an affidavit shows that immediately after passing of the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 in Misc (J) case No. 46/2024, the applicants instructed their engaged counsel Mr. Pankaj Das for preparation of the appeal and file the same before the appropriate court. However, it appears that the engaged counsel committed lapse in doing so within the prescribed period of limitation. It also appears from record that that the applicants have taken back the brief from the said counsel and have engaged a new set of counsel in this case. Page No.# 5/5 8. It is settled proposition of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a liberal approach has be taken by the court. As such, considering the facts stated by the applicants in the instant application, this court is of the considered opinion that there was no malafide on the part of the present applicants, rather they were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, the delay of 129 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned. 9. The Interlocutory Application stands allowed. 10. Registry is directed to register the connected appeal and list the same for admission after one week on a date to be fixed by the Registry. JUDGE Comparing Assistant