Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010074822025 2026:GAU-AS:1282 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1503/2025 WEAVERBIRD INTERACTIVE AND 2 ORS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 8, GROUND FLOOR, KHASRA NUMBER 520, STREET NUMBER 4, SABHAPUR, NEW DELHI 110094 2: MANISHA JAIN W/O PUNEET JAIN. PARTNER OF WEAVERBIRD INTERACTIVE M/S WEAVERBIRD INTERACTIVE HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO 8 GROUND FLOOR KHASRA NO 520 STREET NO 4 NEAR DISPENSARY VILLAGE SABHAPUR NEW DELHI 110094. 3: PAPIHA SAHA W/O DR SANJIT SAHA. PARTNER OF WEAVERBIRD INTERACTIVE R/O 8/702 UDITA BENGAL AMBUJA SURVEY PARK E M BYPAS KOLKATA WEST BENGAL- 70007 VERSUS M/S LANDS PERIODICALS AND ANR PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT M.L. NEHRU ROAD, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI 781001, ASSAM. Page No.# 2/5 2:MR. AJAY NATH PROPRIETOR OF M/S LAND PERIODICALS M.L. NEHRU ROAD PANBAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MR. A K DAS,MS. P DEVI,MR. P S BISWAS,MR S DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N N JHA (R-1,2), MR. M UDDIN(R-1,2),MR H DEKA(R-1,2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 02-02-2026 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants. Also heard Mr. N.N. Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC praying for condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division No. 3), Guwahati in T.S. No. 445/2023 passing the ex-parte decree against the present appellants where they were the respondents. 3. From the record as well as submissions from the learned counsel for both sides it is seen that in the earlier application there was no clarification or explanation in regards to delay and there was also some error. In view of this, an additional-affidavit was filed by the present applicant whereby the grounds for delay has been explained as well as the earlier application also got corrected. Page No.# 3/5 4. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants that in paras 1 to 5 he had already explained the grounds for delay in preferring the connected appeal against the impugned judgment & order as stated above. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta that the ex-parte judgment & order was passed on 04.10.2024 and thereafter the vacation has started and hence he could not apply the certified copy immediately. However, the certified copy of the judgment was applied on 11.11.2024 and received the copy on 07.12.2024. But, as the case was proceeded ex-pate, for preparing an appeal the entire case record was required and for which another application was filed on 17.12.2024 seeking the entire case record, which was received on 19.12.2024. He further submitted that as the counsel resides in Delhi as well as the applicants/appellants also are the residents of Delhi there was some logistic issue in preferring the appeal for which there was delay of 90 days in preferring the appeal. He further submitted that there was no intentional laches or negligence for preferring with 90 days delay. He further submitted that as the judgment passed ex-parte, the applicant could not contest the case. If the applicant is not given a chance to contest this case, the applicant will be prejudiced and in the same time, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent side. 6. Mr. Dutta accordingly prayed for condoning the delay of 90 days. 7. Mr. Jha, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted in this regard that initially the application was filed without any proper explanation of delay and there was also some wrong in the earlier application. But in the present additional-affidavit also there is no proper explanation of the delay. Mr. Jha further submitted that though the learned counsel for the appellant has Page No.# 4/5 submitted that he applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 11.11.2024 but in the annexures filed along with the appeal, it reveals that he had applied for the copy of the judgment only on 17.12.2024 and there is no document to show that a copy of the judgment was applied on 11.11.2024. Thus, he submitted that the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants does not tally with the documents which have been furnished along with the connected appeal. He further submitted that the anexures filed along with the additional-affidavit also shows that on 11.11.2024 he received the certified copy of only the initial order of Deficit Court Fee and there is no other document to prove that he applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 11.11.2024. Mr. Jha accordingly raised objection and submitted that though there is a delay of only 90 days but due to unexplained delay by the applicants, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition as well as the appeal. From the annexures filed in the appeal, it is seen that the certified copy was applied for on 17.12.2024 and which was also received by the appellants on 19.12.2024. However, the annexures filed along with the additional-affidavit it reveals that the certified copy was applied for on 11.11.2024 and the same was received on 07.12.2024. But, the copy which is received in only the first/the initial order passed by the learned Court below. But, it cannot be denied that the certified copy was applied for on 11.11.2024 though there is no proper document to that regard to held that the certified copy of the judgment was received on 07.12.2024 and the entire case record/document was received on 19.12.2024. 9. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and Page No.# 5/5 also considering the period of delay as well as for the ends of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the delay of 90 days can be condoned in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment & order dated 04.10.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division-3), Guwahati in T.S. No. 445 of 2023. 10. In view of this and also for the ends of justice, the present Interlocutory Application for condoning the delay of 90 days in preferring the appeal is hereby allowed. 11. Registry will do the needful in registering the connected appeal and matter may be listed after registering and numbering. 12. With the above observations, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant