Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010065502023 2026:GAU-AS:832 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1618/2023 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR . REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BONGAIGAON,ASSAM 2: THE SETTELMENT OFFICER BONGAON AND GOALPARA DISTRICT AT GOALPARA PO PS AND DIST GOALPARA ASSA VERSUS SYEDA WAHIDA RAHMAN , D/O LATE MANJULA BEGUM AND LATE SYED ISLAM ALI, RESIDENT OFVILLAGE DOLAGAON, PS AND DIST BONGAIGOAN, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : ADDL. SR. GA, ASSAM, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A SATTAR, MR. WASIM HOQUE,S CHOUDHURY,MR. A SATTAR,FOR CAVEATOR In RSA No. 12013/2022 With RSA No. 12013/2022 (Filing Number) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 27.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the applicants, the State of Assam. Also heard Mr. M. Haque, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. This application under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the State applicants, praying for condonation of delay of 119 days in preferring the connected regular second appeal. 3. The opposite party / respondent had instituted a suit for declaration of her right, title and interest, as well as for declaration that order dated 05.12.2007 and 18.03.2008, cancelling the periodic patta of the plaintiff, are illegal and void of initial and also for permanent injunction. The trial court, i.e., the court of learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, by its judgment and decree dated 21.08.2015 and 02.09.2015 respectively had dismissed the aforesaid suit. However, on an appeal preferred by the respondent, which was registered as Title Appeal No.05/2015, the court of learned District Judge Bongaigaon, by its judgment and order dated 28.10.2021, reversed the Page No.# 3/5 judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. 4. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the applicants, has submitted that the applicants applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgment of the trial court on 23.12.2021. However, same was furnished to the applicants only on 08.03.2022. 5. He further submits that on 06.04.2022, the ADC (Revenue), Bongaigaon, had requested the learned Government Pleader, Bongaigaon to take necessary steps for filing second appeal against the judgment of the first appellate court. 6. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that since the appeal is preferred by State and for preferring such an appeal, administrative approval has to be obtained from the respective authorities and in obtaining the legal opinion and administrative approval for preferring the appeal, some time was consumed beyond the period of limitation, which was not within the control of the present applicants and no malafide was there in causing the delay in preferring the connected regular second appeal. Hence, she prays that considering the reasons shown by the applicants in its delay condonation application, the delay of 119 days may be condoned. Page No.# 4/5 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has objected to the prayer for condonation of delay made by the State applicants. He submits that the applicants have failed to show that they were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the connected regular second appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 8. He submits that from the averment made in the condonation of delay application, it appears that the ADC revenue took more than 2(two) months for sending the record to Senior Government Advocate at Guwahati and no reasons has been shown as to why there was delay in sending the said records. He submits that the applicants have failed to properly explain the delay caused in preferring the connected regular second appeal, hence, prays for dismissal of the instant interlocutory application 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 10.In the instant case, in preferring the connected regular second appeal, a delay of 119 days had occurred. 11.It is true that the law of limitation binds everybody irrespective of fact that whether the applicant is a private individual or aGovernment. However, when the litigant is Government, the fact that the decision to prefer an appeal is Page No.# 5/5 not an individual decision, but are institutional decision, which is necessarily bogged down by the red tapism. Hence, certain degree of latitude may be given to the applicants, since, it is the State preferring the appeal and the court has to take a liberal and justice-oriented approach in dealing with an application for condonation of delay under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 12.Accordingly, the delay of 119 days in preferring the connected regular second appeal is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed. 13.The Registry is directed to register the connected regular second appeal and list the same for admission hearing after 7(seven) days on a date to be fixed by it. JUDGE Comparing Assistant