Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010279442025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/64/2026 LEENA NATH AND ANR WIFE OF LT. SUJIT RANJAN NATH (WIFE OF THE DECEASED AND CLAIMANT NO. 1) 2: LEENAKSHMI NATH (UNMARRIED DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED AND CLAIMANT NO.2) BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PRAGATI NAGAR HOUSE NO. 58 P.S.- FATASIL AMBARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS SUMAN MALAKAR AND 2 ORS SON OF SADHAN MALAKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGENADIRPHAR, P.O AND PS.- LUMDING, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM 2:TULEN DAS SON OF MONDEEP DAS RESIDENT OF UZAN BAZAR ROAD JAHAJGHAT PS- LATASIL DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD . POLICY NO. 35101031176340981149 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT LOHIA MANSION G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI ASSAM-781005 Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B KONWAR, Y N MAHANTA,MS D DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. S ROY(R3), MS DHRITI HAZARIKA(R3) Linked Case : RP(FAM.CT.)/0/0 LEENA NATH WIFE OF LT. SUJIT RANJAN NATH WIFE OF THE DECEASED AND CLAIMANT NO. 1 2: LEENAKSHMI NATH UNMARRIED DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED AND CLAIMANT NO.2 BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PRAGATI NAGAR HOUSE NO. 58 P.S.- FATASIL AMBARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS SUMAN MALAKAR SON OF SADHAN MALAKAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGENADIRPHAR PO PS.- LUMDING DIST. NAGAON ASSAM OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE AS 02 BC-3578 2:TULEN DAS SON OF MONDEEP DAS RESIDENT OF UZAN BAZAR ROAD JAHAJGHAT PS- LATASIL DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM DRIVER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE AS 02 BC-3578 3:NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD . POLICY NO. 35101031176340981149 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT LOHIA MANSION G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI Page No.# 3/7 ASSAM-781005. ------------ Advocate for : Biplop Konwar Advocate for : appearing for SUMAN MALAKAR BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 28.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. B. Konwar as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Ms. S. Roy. 2. The present application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed praying for condonation of delay of 100 days in filing the Appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned Member, MACT No.2 Kamrup (M) Guwahati. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that after passing of the impugned judgment and order dated 29.05.2025, the engaged counsel for the appellant failed to give proper advice and also failed to keep proper communication with the applicants. It is submitted that the wife of the deceased claimant No.1 and the claimant No.2 were the only remaining legal heirs. The claimant No.1 who is unaware of the legal intricacies and the claimant No.2 who was only a student put their faith upon their engaged counsel however, the engaged counsel failed to properly communicate and guide them in the right direction. It is submitted that even after passing of the impugned judgment and order dated 29.05.2025 the engaged counsel failed to communicate the same to the applicants and only when the claimant No.2 in the month of November discussed the matter with one of her friend who happens to be a student of Law found out online that the Page No.# 4/7 judgment had already been passed. Upon learning the same, the claimant No.2 along with her mother went to the office of the then engaged counsel and enquire about the matter but the counsel told them to engage another counsel in order to file appeal. Thereafter the claimant No.2 with the help of her friend figured out that there is a limitation period of 90 days for filing an appeal and thus without any further delay the applicant engaged the present counsel on 25.11.2025. 4. After filing the vakalatnama without any further delay the claimant No.2 immediately applied for a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 29.05.2025 along with other relevant documents on 28.11.2025. The certified copies were received on 04.12.2025 and were handed over to the present counsel. Upon receiving the documents the engaged counsel has thoroughly reviewed the judgment and order dated 29.05.2025, the written statements and the evidence including the cross-examination of PW- 1. Thereafter, he commenced preparation of the draft appeal. The entire process from applying for the certified copies to the filing of the appeal took an additional 14 days and hence the delay of 100 days has been caused. The appeal was finally filed on 12.12.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another vs Mst. Katiji and others reported in 1987 Supreme(SC) 229 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. The Apex Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted Page No.# 5/7 against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 6. The learned counsel further submits that in the present case there is no deliberate delay on the part of the applicant and therefore the application may be allowed. 7. The learned counsel Mrs. S.Roy appearing for the respondent No.3 has objected to the instant application. The respondent No.3 has also filed objection by way of an affidavit. In the said written objection, the respondent No.3 has submitted that the applicant has failed to explained each day delay which is mandatory under the law. The applicants have also laid the entire blame on their engaged counsel whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr vs Ved Prakash reported in 2024 Supreme(SC)1101 has held that the entire blame for the delay cannot be thrown on the Advocate appearing for the petitioners in the trial Court. The Apex Court noted that over a period of time there has been a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the Court. The Court held that even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay. The litigants therefore should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. The learned counsel also relied in the case of H.Guruswamy & Ors vs A. Krishnaiah reported in 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 66 wherein the Apex Court has held that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of Page No.# 6/7 the parties but they are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. Further it is held that the length of delay is definitely a relevant matter which the Court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. 8. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsels and examined the pleadings. There is no doubt that when an application of condonation is considered by this Court, the Court also has to see whether the appeal has any merit. Therefore when substantial justice and technical consideration are to be considered, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. This Court has also seen that in one of the cases referred to by the respondent No.3, the delay was of 534 days and in the case H.Guruswamy & Ors vs A. Krishnaiah(supra), the delay was 2200 days. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant has been able to explain the reasons for the delay satisfactorily and accordingly sufficient cause has been shown for the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the application is allowed. 10. Registry is directed to register the MAC appeal and thereafter list the same for admission hearing after one week. 11. Registry shall also reflect the name of Mrs. S.Roy as counsel for the respondent No.3 in the cause list. JUDGE Page No.# 7/7 Comparing Assistant