ON THE DEATH OF SUDHANGSHU DEB HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVE SMTI JONALI DEB v. DULAL CHANDRA DAS
I.A.(Civil)/1509/2025 · 2026-02-15
Robin Phukan
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2540 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2540 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010089342025
2026:GAU-AS:2201
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1509/2025 ON THE DEATH OF SUDHANGSHU DEB HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVE SMTI JONALI DEB WIFE OF SUDHANGSHU DEB, RESIDENT OF NEW COLONY, NAUKA PUJA TEMPLE, P.O. PANDU, P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI-11. DISTRICT - KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN-78100 VERSUS DULAL CHANDRA DAS SON OF LATE SURYA KUMAR DAS. 2:HIMANGSHU BIMAL DAS SON OF LATE SURYA KUMAR DAS. 3:SUBHANGSHU BIMAL DAS ALL ARE SONS OF LATE SURYA KUMAR DAS RESIDENT OF AMERICAN COLONY P.O. PANDU P.S. JALUKBARI GUWAHATI-12 DISTRICT KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 4:STRUCK OFF VIDE HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER DATED 22.08.2025 PASSED IN . I.A.(C) NO. 1509/2025 5:STRUCK OFF VIDE HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER DATED 22.08.2025 PASSED IN . I.A.(C) NO. 1509/2025
Page No.# 2/5 6:JOGEN NATH SARMA SON OF LATE SIDDHINATH SARMA RESIDENT OF HATIGAON 5TH BYE LANE P.O. AND P.S. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 5 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 7:STRUCK OFF VIDE HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER DATED 22.08.2025 PASSED IN . I.A.(C) NO. 1509/2025 8:NIRANJAN KUMAR SON OF LATE DHANIRAM KUMAR NOS.7 AND 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF BORIPARA MALIGAON P.O. MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 9:STRUCK OFF VIDE HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER DATED 22.08.2025 PASSED IN . I.A.(C) NO. 1509/2025 10:ON THE DEATH OF CHANDRAKESH PATOWARY HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVES 10(A) SMTI JUTIKA PATOWARY (WIFE OF LATE CHANDRAKESH PATOARY RESIDENT OF C/O. MINTU DAS HOUSE NO. 56 NEAR ASSAM FOREST SCHOOL KHANAMUKH P.O. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI-14 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 10.2:PRAGYA PATOARY SON OF LATE CHANDRAKESH PATOWARY RESIDENT OF C/O. MINTU DAS HOUSE NO. 56 NEAR ASSAM FOREST SCHOOL KHANAMUKH P.O. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI-14 DIST. KAMRUP(M)
Page No.# 3/5 ASSAM 10.3:NISHIT PATOWARY SON OF LATE CHANDRAKESH PATOWARY RESIDENT OF C/O. MINTU DAS HOUSE NO. 56 NEAR ASSAM FOREST SCHOOL KHANAMUKH P.O. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI-14 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 11:PRIYALAL DAS SON OF HARIMOHAN DAS RESIDENT OF RAILWAY QR. NO.78/B NEAR BUDDHA MANDIR P.O. PANDU P.S. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 12:SHIKHA DEY WIFE OF KAMAL CHANDRA DEY RESIDENT OF NEW ADABARI COLONY NEAR RAILWAY QR. L138/B P.O. PANDU P.S.JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 13:TAPASHI RAKHIT WIFE OF BIPLAB RAKHIT RESIDET OF NEW COLONY P.O. PANDU P.S. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : C KALITA, L K BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : ,
Page No.# 4/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 16.02.2026
Heard Mr. L.K. Borah, learned counsel for the applicant. 2.
This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is preferred by the applicant for condoning the delay of 378 days in preferring the connected regular second appeal against the judgment dated 11.01.2024 and decree dated 24.01.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup(M), Guwahati (‘first appellate Court’, for short), in Title Appeal No. 9/2012. 3. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the applicant submits that though notice upon the opposite parties has duly been served, the opposite parties remained unrepresented today. Mr. Borah also submits that though the applicant was represented by a counsel before the learned first appellate Court, yet she had not been informed about the disposal of the said appeal, and that the said ground has duly been explained in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the application. Mr. Borah further submits that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial, and under such circumstances, he has contended to condone the same. 4. Having heard the submission of Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the applicant, I have carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the statements and averments made by the applicant in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the application. 5. It appears that in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the application, the delay of 378 days has duly been explained and accordingly, the same stands condoned. Page No.# 5/5
6. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. 7. In view of the order passed in this application, now the Registry shall register the connected regular second appeal and list the same before this Court as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant