Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010050412020 2026:GAU-AS:6989 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No : I.A.(Civil)/774/2020 THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. and ANR A SUCCESSOR COMPANY OF ERSTWILE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 1 2: ELECUTIVE ENGINEER ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ELECTRICAL DIVISION BHALUKDUBI GOALPARA NOW REDESIGNATED AS ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. BHALUKDUBI GOALPARA ASSAM. VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF KISHORILAL PODDAR HIS LEGAL HEIRS LALIT KUMAR PODDAR AND ANR S/O LATE KISHORILAL PODDAR C/O KISHORILAL PODDAR AND SONS PANCHARATNA ROAD GOALPARA ASSAM PIN 2:DEEPAK KUMAR PODDAR S/O LATE KISHORILAL PODDAR C/O KISHORILAL PODDAR AND SONS Page No.# 2/5 PANCHARATNA ROAD GOALPARA ASSAM PIN ------------ Advocate for : MR B D DAS Advocate for : appearing for ON THE DEATH OF KISHORILAL PODDAR HIS LEGAL HEIRS LALIT KUMAR PODDAR AND ANR Linked Case : CRP/76/2015 THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. and ANR A SUCCESSOR COMPANY OF ERSTWHILE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GHY- 1. 2: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ELECTRICAL DIVISION BHALUKDUBI GOALPARA NOW REDESIGNATED AS ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD BHALUKDUBI GOALPARA ASSAM. VERSUS KISHORILAL PODDAR S/O- LT. THAKISI DAS PODDAR PANCHARATNA ROAD GOALPARA TOWN P.O. and DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR.H K SARMA Advocate for : appearing for KISHORILAL PODDAR Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 20.05.2026 Heard Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears on call for the respondent although the notice is duly served which is reflected in the order passed today in I.A.(Civil)/774/2020. 2. By filing this interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 2617 (Two thousand six hundred and seventeen) days in filing the interlocutory application for setting aside abetment in CRP/76/2015. 3. By order 17.09.2025, steps was ordered to be taken upon the substituted respondents by registered post with A/D as well by usual process. 4. As per office note dated 18.05.2026, usual process has been served as substituted respondent no. 2 has received notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and for himself. Further, as per the order of the Lawazima Court dated 16.07.2024, notice on respondent no. 1 is to be served by Speed Post with A/D, which was duly served. Accordingly, notice on the respondents is duly served. Page No.# 4/5 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondent no. 1 in CRP/76/2015 had died on 29.09.2012, which was not within his knowledge. Moreover, though the execution proceedings, being T.Ex. Case No. 01/2010, was pending, the deceased respondent was not substituted. 6. In the meanwhile, being, aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2014, passed by the learned District Judge, Goalpara, the petitioners have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is submitted that in course of proceedings of CRP/76/2015, notice issued to the sole respondent was returned with postal remark “addressee expired return to sender”. It is submitted that the said order of the Lawazima Court dated 08.04.2016 came to the notice only on 31.10.2019. Thereafter, the applications for substitution, for setting aside abetment, and condonation application were filed on 27.02.2020 and in the process there was a delay of 2617 (Two thousand six hundred seventeen) days beyond the period of limitation for application for setting aside abetment and application for substitution. 8. In light of the projection that though the sole respondent in CRP/76/2015 had died on 29.09.2012, and the respondent was not substituted in the execution petition at least till the impugned order dated 27.10.2014 was passed, the Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants have been able to make out a case for condoning the inordinate delay of 2617 (Two thousand six hundred seventeen) days beyond the period of limitation. Page No.# 5/5 9. Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant