Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4747 (GAU)

ON THE DEATH OF MAYUR UDDIN MAZUMDER, v. ON THE DEATH OF RAKESH CHANDRA DEY

I.A.(Civil)/634/2024 · 2026-04-21

Kaushik Goswami

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010292862023 2026:GAU-AS:5502 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/634/2024 ON THE DEATH OF MAYUR UDDIN MAZUMDER, HIS LEGAL HEIRS 1.1: NURJAN MAZUMDER W/O LATE MAYUR UDDIN MAZUMDER R/O VILL. RAJPATH RONGPUR PART-IV DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 1.2: SHAHIDA AKTAR LASKAR D/O LATE MAYUR UDDIN MAZUMDER W/O AJIJ AHMED LASKAR R/O VILL. AND P.O. SAIDPUR PART-II DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 1.3: SAHINA AKTAR BARBHUIYA D/O LATE MAYUR UDDIN MAZUMDER W/O BADRUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA R/O VTC SAIDPUR PART-II P.O. SAIDPUR PART-II DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 1.4: REHIMA AKTAR MAZUMDER D/O LATE MAYUR UDDIN MAZUMDER R/O VILL. RAJPATH RONGPUR PART-IV DIST. CACHAR Page No.# 2/5 ASSA VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF RAKESH CHANDRA DEY HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS. 1.1:RAKHAL RANJAN DEY S/O LT. RAKESH CHANDRA DEY R/O VIVEKANANDA ROAD SILCHAR P.S.-BARAKPUR DIST-CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788007 1.2:SMTI REKHASHREE DEY W/O AMULYA CHANDRA DEY R/O VIVEKANANDA ROAD SILCHAR P.S.-BARAKPUR DIST-CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788007 1.3:SMTI. RATNA DHAR W/O AMULYA DHAR R/O GOBARDHANPARA GUWAHATI DIST-KAMRUP(M) 1.4:SMTI. RUPASHREE DY W/O AMAR DEY R/O GONGAPARA RONGPUR PART-IV PARGANA BARAKPAR DIST-CACHAR ASSAM 1.5:RAKHI DUTTA W/O SAMBHU DUTTA R/O SALGANGA PARGANA UDHARBOND DIST-CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788031 Page No.# 3/5 2:ON THE DEATH OF ANNANDA MOHAN DEY HIS LEGAL HEIRS 2.1:KHELA RANI DEY W/O LT. ANNANDA MOHAN DEY R/O SANTIPARA RONGPUR PART-IV PARGANA BARAKPUR DIST-CACHAR PIN-788009 2.2:AJOY DEY S/O LT. ANNANDA MOHAN DEY R/O SANTIPARA RONGPUR PART-IV PARGANA BARAKPUR DIST-CACHAR PIN-788009 3:ON THE DEATH OF NIRESH CHANDRA DEY HIS LEGAL HEIRS 3.1:SMTI. MIRA DEY W/O LT. NIRESH CHANDRA DEY R/O SANTIPARA RONGPUR PART-IV PARGANA BARAKPUR P.S.-SILCHAR DIST-CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788009 3.2:NILANJAN DEY S/O LT. NIRESH CHANDRA DEY R/O SANTIPARA RONGPUR PART-IV PARGANA BARAKPUR P.S.-SILCHAR DIST-CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788009 3.3:DIPANJAN DEY S/O LT. NIRESH CHANDRA DEY R/O SANTIPARA RONGPUR PART-IV Page No.# 4/5 PARGANA BARAKPUR P.S.-SILCHAR DIST-CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788009 3.4:SMTI. NIRA DEY D/O LT. NIRESH CHANDRA DEY R/O SANTIPARA RONGPUR PART-IV PARGANA BARAKPUR P.S.-SILCHAR DIST-CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78800 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ISLAM, MR. L R MAZUMDER,MR E HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : , MR. A H M R CHOUDHURY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 22.04.2026 Heard Mr. L R Mazumder, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. S C Murtaza, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. R Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By way of the present interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicants seeks condonation of delay of 85 days in filing the connected interlocutory application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased appellant. During pendency of the connected regular second appeal, i.e., RSA No. Page No.# 5/5 76/2021, the appellant, i.e., father of the applicants expired on 29.04.2023. The applicants being the legal heir of the deceased, Mayur Uddin Mazumder, the appellant in RSA No. 76/2021, the rights to sue being surviving, an application for substitution has been filed. However, while filing the substitution application, a delay of 85 days had occurred. Situated thus, the present condonation application has been filed. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, it appears that after the expiry of the father of the applicants, the applicants were unaware about the case. Though they had come to know about the same, however due to some medical issue in their family, they could not contact the engaged counsels immediately, for which there has been a delay of 85 days in filing the substitution application. The grounds averred, appears to be sufficient and bonafide. Accordingly, the delay of 85 days in filing the connected substitution application hereby stands condoned. Consequently, the instant interlocutory application, stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant