Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010142002026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2462/2026 CHOLAMANDALM M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE HEAD OFFICE AT SHAW WALLACE BUILDING NEW NO. 319, OLD NO. 154, 2ND FLOOR, THAMBU CHETTY, CHENNAI, PIN-600001, INDIA, ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT OFFICE NO. 201 202 L AND T CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR, 16 CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA-700017 AND ITS GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, AASTHA PLAZA, BORA SERVICE, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781007. REP. BY THE DEPUTY LEGAL CLAIMS OF GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE VERSUS SRI BHUPEN RABHA AND ANR. SON OF LATE BIJAY RABHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KHENAPARA, POLICE STATION- BOKO, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN CODE-781123 2:SRI PRANJAL OJHA SON OF JATINDRA NATH OJHA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 3 WARD NO. 30 LACHUBARI PATH NEAR GANESH MANDIR HIGH SCHOOL SIX MILE KHANAPARA GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN CODE781029 OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. AS 01/CC2131 TRUC Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T KALITA, MR. A KAKATI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. I HAQUE, B CHOWHAN(R2),MR. P MAZUMDER(R2),MR. S Page No.# 2/3 CHAUHAN(R2),FOR CAVEATOR CAVT.NO. 07382/026, In MFA Case No. 8140/2026 With MFA Case No. 8140/2026 (filing number) With I.A.(C) Case No. 8141/2026 (filing number) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 07.09.2026 [1] Heard Mr. T. Kalita, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Mazumder, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. [2] It appears that on last occasion, opposite party No. 1 was represented by his engaged counsel, however, today no one is there to represent the opposite party No. 1. [3] This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant/insurance company under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condoning the delay of 55 days in preferring the connected Miscellaneous First Appeal. [4] The learned counsel for the applicant has Page No.# 3/3 submitted that the applicant has mentioned the grounds for delay in preferring the appeal in paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 of the instant interlocutory application. [5] The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have not raised any objection to the prayer for condonation of delay. [6] I have gone through the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application. [7] After considering the grounds so stated and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, this court is of the considered opinion that the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application may be considered as sufficient cause which prevented the applicant in preferring the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. [8] As such, the delay of 55 days in preferring the connected Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed. [9] The Registry is directed to register the connected Miscellaneous First Appeal and list the same for admission after a week, on a date to be fixed by it. JUDGE Comparing Assistant