Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010061952023 2026:GAU-AS:2200 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/822/2023 KISHOR KR DAS S/O RAJANI MOHAN DAS, PROPRIETOR OF DRISTI PRINTERS, R/O PRAN BHAWAN, HENGRABARI ROAD, SANKARPUR, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, DIST-KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF PROBHAT MAHANTA HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS NAMELY 1.1:SMT. MANJULA MAHANTA W/O LATE PRABHAT MAHANTA R/O PREM BHAWAN SANKARPUR HENGRABARI ROAD DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 DIST-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 1.2:DIPAK MAHANTA S/O LATE PRABHAT MAHANTA R/O PREM BHAWAN SANKARPUR HENGRABARI ROAD DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 DIST-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 1.3:RITA PEGU D/O LATE PRABHAT MAHANTA R/O PREM BHAWAN SANKARPUR HENGRABARI ROAD DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 DIST-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 1.4:PREETY MAHANTA D/O LATE PRABHAT MAHANTA R/O PREM BHAWAN SANKARPUR HENGRABARI ROAD DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 DIST-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 1.5:ANITA MAHANTA D/O LATE PRABHAT MAHANTA R/O PREM BHAWAN SANKARPUR HENGRABARI ROAD DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 DIST-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 1.6:HEMASHREE MAHANTA GRAND D/O LATE PRABHAT MAHANTA R/O PREM BHAWAN SANKARPUR HENGRABARI ROAD DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 DIST-KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K BHUYAN, MR. M KASHYAP Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 16.02.2026 Heard Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the applicant. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 1(one) day in filing connected civil revision petition, against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in Title Appeal No.5/2016, whereby the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2015, passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup(M), in Title Suit Page No.# 3/3 No.465/2010 has been upheld. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has effected service of notice upon the opposite parties by way of paper publication and an affidavit to that effect, enclosing the concerned newspapers in which the notice was published are also filed but none appears today for them. Further, Mr. Bhuyan submits that there was delay of only 1(one) day and while obtaining the certified copy, there was a wrong calculation of the days and as such, the connected civil revision petition could not be filed in time and the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and under such circumstances, Mr. Bhuyan has contended to allow this application by condoning the delay of 1(one) day. Having heard the submission of Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the applicant, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and also the affidavit filed in respect of effecting service of notice upon the opposite parties. It appears that even after service of notice upon the opposite parties by substituted mode, they have failed to turn up. Further from the submission as well as from the statement and averment made in the application, it appears that the delay of 1(one) day is sufficiently explained and accordingly, the same stands condoned. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. Now, the Registry will register and number the CRP and list the same before the Court as soon as practicable. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE