Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010139672026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2420/2026 SHRI JAGADISH CH BANIK S/O SHRI NITYANANDA BANIK RESIDENT OF SILCHAR ROAD SRIBHUMI KARIMGANJ TOWN P.O. KARIMGANJ DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM VERSUS SHRI BHOLA NATH MAZUMDAR S/O LATE PRANONATH MAZUMDAR RESIDENT OF A.C. SEN ROAD KARIMGANJ TOWN P.O. SRIBHUMI KARIMGANJ DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM 788710 2:LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE SHRI ASHISH MAZUMDAR A.C. SEN ROAD KARIMGANJ TOWNP.O. SRIBHUMI KARIMGANJ DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM 788710 2.1:SOMA MAJUMDAR W/O LATE SHRI ASHISH MAZUMDAR RESIDENT OF A.C. SEN ROAD KARIMGANJ TOWN P.O. SRIBHUMI KARIMGANJ DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM 788710 2.2:ANUSHKA MAJUMDAR D/O LATE SHRI ASHISH MAZUMDAR RESIDENT OF A.C. SEN ROAD KARIMGANJ TOWN P.O. SRIBHUMI KARIMGANJ DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM 788710 2.3:SOUMILI MAJUMDAR Page No.# 2/4 D/O LATE SHRI ASHISH MAZUMDAR RESIDENT OF A.C. SEN ROAD KARIMGANJ TOWN P.O. SRIBHUMI KARIMGANJ DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM 788710 3:SHRI UJJAL MAJUMDAR S/O SHRI BHOLA NATH MAZUMDAR RESIDENT OF A.C. SEN ROAD KARIMGANJ TOWN P.O. SRIBHUMI KARIMGANJ DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM 788710 4:SHRI BHASKAR DAS S/O LATE REBATI MOHAN DAS RESIDENT OF BONAMALI ROAD SRIBHUMI PO AND DIST SRIBHUMI ASSAM 788710 ------------ Advocate for : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY Advocate for : MR. S C KEYAL appearing for SHRI BHOLA NATH MAZUMDAR In CRP Case No. 329/2013 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 09.09.2026 [1] Heard Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also Mr. D. Mozumder, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 to 3. [2] This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant praying for condonation of delay of 10(ten) days in Page No.# 3/4 preferring the application for setting aside abatement and substitution of legal heirs of respondent No. 2, Sri Ashish Mazumdar, who expired on 22.01.2026. [3] The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the reasons for delay in preferring the connected applications have been stated in paragraph No. 3 of the instant interlocutory application. [4] The learned counsel for the opposite parties, Mr. D. Mozumder has not raised any objection against the instant interlocutory application. [5] Considering the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application to be sufficient ground which prevented the applicant from preferring the applications for setting aside abatement of the connected petition against respondent No. 2 and for substituting his legal heirs by sufficient cause. As such, the delay of 10(ten) days in preferring the said applications is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed. Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant