Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010095832026 2026:GAU-AS:7482 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/199/2026 IBRAHIM ALI S/O LATE ISHA HOQUE MUNCHI, R/O ROWMARI CHAPARI, P.O.- DALGAON, P.S.- SHYAMPUR, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784116 VERSUS MD. GHUTU SEIKH @ GHUTU MAL S/O LATE EYAD ALI, R/O VILL- KASHOMARI NEPALIGAON, P.O.- KOUPATI, MOUZA- PUB SALMAR, P.S.- DALGAON, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MR. W A SHEIKH,MS S A KHALIFA,MS F INTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 27.05.2026 Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff decree holder in Title Suit No. Page No.# 2/4 91/2015, which was decreed ex parte on 15.06.2024, has assailed the order dated 09.03.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang, Mangaldai, in Title Appeal No.02/2025, thereby allowing the prayer for condonation of delay of 177 (one hundred and seventy seven) days beyond the period of limitation in filing the appeal, for which prayer was made vide petition no.75/25. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the documents annexed to this application and it is submitted that learned trial Court had passed an order dated 17.11.2021, directing the suit to proceed ex parte against the respondent/ defendant no.1. However, the suit was decreed ex parte on 15.06.2024. 4. It is submitted that the respondent had not explained the delay which had occurred from 17.11.2021 till the ex parte decree was passed on 15.06.2024. Accordingly, it is submitted that the delay of 177 (One hundred and seventy seven) days alone could not have been condoned without any explanation for delay of almost two and a half years between 17.11.2021 to 15.06.2024. It is also submitted that in the said petition no.75/25, which was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, there was total suppression of material facts regarding the delay which had occurred from 17.11.2021 to 15.06.2024. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 suffers from illegality and liable to be interfered with. 5. Considered the submissions as well as the materials available on record. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner may or may Page No.# 3/4 not have been good if an application was made by the respondent for setting aside the ex parte decree before the Court which had passed the decree. In this case the respondent, instead of applying for setting aside the ex parte order under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, had preferred an appeal, which is essentially an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC. Under such circumstances, the explanation of delay would be covered by Article 116 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which prescribes the period of limitation of 30 (thirty) days for filing an appeal under the CPC to any Court other than the High Court from any decree or order and the period of limitation would run from the date of the decree or order. Therefore, the respondent was not required by the prescription of Article 116 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act to explain the delay which had occurred on and from 17.11.2021, the date when the trial Court directed the suit to proceed ex parte till 15.06.2024, when the ex parte decree was passed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded only to reject the same. 7. Insofar as the delay of 177 (One hundred and seventy seven) days is concerned, the respondent has explained the causes of delay by stating that he is a senior citizen and an illiterate person and he was under a bona fide impression that his learned counsel would inform him whenever the case would be disposed and as he had no knowledge of the ex parte decree, he applied for the decree and by the time application was made, there was a delay of 177 (One hundred and seventy seven) days. 8. In this case the learned First Appellate Court i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang, Mangaldai, had exercised its Page No.# 4/4 discretion to condone the delay by examining the materials placed before it. Therefore, this Court, in exercise of superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned First Appellate Court as it is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Courts to condone the delay and in this case the First Appellate Court had formed an opinion that procedural law of Limitation are meant to ensure diligence but not to defeat substantial justice and accordingly, took an otherwise legally permitted the view that the Courts would determine the matter on merit instead of shutting the doors of justice on technical grounds of limitation. This Court does not find the said reasoning to be perverse or shocking to the conscience of the Court. 9. Accordingly, the Court is disinclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang, Mangaldai, in Title Appeal No.02/2025, allowing petition no.75/25 and condoning the delay of 177 (One hundred and seventy seven) days. 10. Accordingly, this application fails and the same is dismissed. 11. The Registry shall transmit a copy of the order, by e mail to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang, Mangaldai to make it a part of record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant