Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010023112026 2026:GAU-AS:3422 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/370/2026 SRI KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA AND 5 ORS LATE RUDRESWAR SARMA 2: DEEPANKAR SARMA S/O LATE RUDRESWAR SARMA 3: DEEPALI DEVI D/O LATE RUDRESWAR SARMA 4: JAYASHREE GOSWAMI D/O LAE RUDRESWAR SARMA 5: SMTI ANJAL DEVI D/O LATE RUDRESWAR SARMA 6: SMTI BIGHA GOSWAMI D/O LATE RUDRESWAR SARMA ALL R/O JYOTINAGAR GUWAHATI 21 P.S. CHANDMARI DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS MANOJ KALITA RESIDENT OF SANTINAGAR, DIST-KAMRUP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BISWAS, MR P K BASU Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 Linked Case : CS/0/0 SRI KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA ASSAM VERSUS MANOJ KALITA SON OF LATE RUDRESWAR KALITRESIDENT OF SANTINAGAR DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM. Advocate for the applicant(s): Mr. A Biswas Advocate for the respondent(s): B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 06.03.2026 Heard Mr. A Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. 2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 550 days in preferring the accompanying review petition filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 14.05.2024 in RSA Page No.# 3/4 No.262/2010. 3. A Special Leave to Appeal was filed under Article 136 of the Constitution against the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2024 in RSA No.262/2010 and the said appeal was dismissed by condoning the delay by the Supreme Court. Thereupon the accompanying review application was filed on 16.12.2025 with various defects. 4. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the various defects with which the review application was filed. The defects were: (i). Mobile No./Whatsapp No. of the petitioner was not given in the filing form; (ii). The Annexures were not certified; (iii). One page each in between the page Nos.29 & 30 and 31 & 32 were missing; (iv). Condonation petition not filed; (v). Court fee was short by Rs.1.50p. 5. The defects were rectified only on 07.02.2026. The question arises as to whether the Review Petitioner had acted bona fide? 6. In the backdrop of the above, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the grounds taken to show sufficient cause. The grounds so taken is that the review applicant was not aware that a review can be filed, even after dismissal of the SLP. 7. It is the opinion of this Court that based upon the manner in which the defects were put in the review application at the time of filing and the grounds so assigned in the application do not appear to be bona fide, but rather an Page No.# 4/4 attempt to further prolong a dispute which stood settled. Under such circumstances, as the instant application is not filed bona fide, this Court is not inclined to issue notice in the instant application. 8. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the instant application, the accompanying review petition so filed cannot be entertained. JUDGE Comparing Assistant