Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010121322026 2026:GAU-AS:13039 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2226/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI. 2: THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781011 DIST.- KAMRUP M ASSAM. 3: THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY TINSUKIA TINSUKIA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. 4: THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (WORKS) N.F. RAILWAY TINSUKIA PO AND DIST.-TINSUKIA ASSAM. 5: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CIVIL ENGINEER (G) RAILWAY BOARD NEW DELHI 6: THE CHIEF ENGINEER N.F. RAILWAY DIBRUGARH AT TINSUKIA PO-TINSUKIA. Page No.# 2/8 7: THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER N.F. RAILWAY TINSUKIA DIST.-TINSUKIA ASSAM. 8: THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER N.F. RAILWAY TINSUKIA DISTRICT- TINSUKIA ASSA VERSUS SRI INAMUL RASHID HAZARIKA S/O LATE ABDUL RASHID HAZARIKA, B.C. DAS ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, P.O. AND P.S.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H GUPTA, Advocate for the Respondent : MD. A SAHAD, In RFA Case No. 6953/2026 With RFA Case No. 6953/2026 (Filing Number) with I.A.(Civil) Case No. 6954/2026 (Filing Number) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 08.09.2026 [1] Heard Mr. H. Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Sahad, the learned Page No.# 3/8 counsel for the sole respondent. [2] This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been preferred by the applicants praying for condonation of delay of 67 days in preferring the connected appeal wherein, the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2025, passed by the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 22 of 2013 (renumbered from Title Suit No. 17/2003) has been impugned. [3] The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the aforementioned Title Suit, the judgment and decree was delivered by the trial court on 11.12.2025 and as such, the appeal against the same ought to have been filed within 10.03.2026 by the applicants. However, delay of 67 days has been caused due to the reasons stated by the applicants in the instant interlocutory application. He submits that the first reason for the delay is that there was a delay of 25 days in getting the certified copy of the impugned judgment from the date on which same was applied for. He submits that though the certified copy of the impugned judgement was applied on 12.12.2025, however, it was furnished only on 06.01.2026. [4] He further submits that since the applicants is the Union of India for preferring an appeal against the Page No.# 4/8 judgment in which the Union of India is involved certain formalities are required to be performed like obtaining legal opinion as to whether the case is a fit case to prefer appeal or not and as such, in preferring legal opinion from the Government Advocate, some time was consumed. [5] He further submits that after the decision for preferring an appeal was taken by the applicants, it was found that certain relevant documents were required which had to be obtained from the Railway Department Office at Tinsukia. He submits that said documents were received only in the month of March, 2026 and thereafter, the matter was assigned to the present counsel for filing the appeal. [6] The learned counsel for the applicants further submits that after assign by the Department filed the appeal, he felt sick in the month of April and had to undergo an operation for Gall Bladder Stone in the month of May, 2026. As such, he could not file the appeal within the prescribed period and the delay of 67 days has occurred in filing the appeal. [7] He further submits that delay caused in filing the appeal was not due to any malafide on the part of the applicants, but due to reasons beyond his control and as such, the grounds stated in the instant Page No.# 5/8 interlocutory application may be regarded as sufficient ground and prays for condoning the delay of 67 days in preferring the connected appeal. [8] On the other hand, Mr. A. Sahad, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay by the present applicants. He submits that the applicants’ being the Union of India has its own legal department and as such, obtaining a separate legal opinion from Government Advocate is meaningless. [9] He further submits that the applicants has not stated specific dates in the instant interlocutory application as to on which dates the request for filing appeal was made and when the documents from Tinsukia Office of Railway Department were sought for and when the same were received. [10] He submits that the application filed by the applicants does not specify the dates on which the appeal was finally prepared. He also submits that though a plea of illness of the engaged counsel of the applicants has been taken in the instant application, however, no medical documents to substantiate the same has been furnished by the applicants. [11] He further submits that the idea underlying Page No.# 6/8 the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of period fixed by the legislature, and after expiry of such period, a right accrues in the party, and as such, without sufficient cause, the delay should not be condoned. He submits that in the instant case, the applicants have failed to show any sufficient cause which occasioned the delay in filing the connected appeal. As such, he submits that the prayer for condonation of delay may be rejected. [12] In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited the following rulings: i. “Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran and Another “reported in “2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093”; ii. “Union of India Vs. Jatin Ch. Kalita and Ors.”, reported in “(2021) 3 GLR 622”. [13] I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. [14] On perusal of the records, it appears that this Page No.# 7/8 case involves a private party on the one side and the Union of India on the other side. It also appears on perusal of the interlocutory application that the main grounds stated by the applicants for preferring the connected appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation is getting administrative approval or legal opinion for preferring the appeal, as well as procuring the relevant documents which are necessary for filing the appeal and the ailment of counsel, who was entrusted to file the present appeal. [15] Though the applicants has not submitted/annexed any medical document along with the instant interlocutory application, however, the interlocutory application is supported by affidavit and, therefore, this Court is not disbelieving the contention regarding ailment of the engaged counsel. [16] Though the applicants ought to have been more particular in specifying dates on which different steps were taken for preparing the appeal, however, considering the fact that the applicants is a Government Department and as such, a liberal and justice-oriented approach is taken in this matter, and the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application are considered to be sufficient grounds which prevented the applicants in preferring the connected appeal within the prescribed Page No.# 8/8 period of limitation. [17] In view of above discussion and reasons stated, the delay of 67 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed. [18] The Registry is directed to register the connected regular first appeal and list the same for admission after a week on a date to be fixed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant