Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010084262024 2026:GAU-AS:7358 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1298/2024 THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD REP. BY THE MANAGER CHRISTIAN BASTI, NEAR MANIK CHAND AND SONS JEWELLERS, GUWAHATI- 5, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS JAYMATI KACHARI AND 2 ORS. W/O LATE BIREN CHANDRA KACHARI, RESIDING AT VILL.- BAGARIBARI, PO.- BARANGABARI, P.S.- KHOIRABARI, DIST.- UDALGURI (B.T.A.D), ASSAM. 2:MAHENDRA DEKA W/O LATE BHABI RAM DEKA RESIDING AT VILL.- BAGARGABARI PO.- BARANGABARI P.S.- KHOIRABARI DIST.- UDALGURI (B.T.A.D) ASSAM. 3:DIPAK CHANDRA DAS S/O LATE CHANDI RAM DAS VILL.- HUSSAIN CHUBURI P.S.- SIPAJHAR DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. P BORTHAKUR,MS. M SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : MR D K KALITA (R-1), Page No.# 2/5 Linked Case : THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD VERSUS JAYMATI KACHARI AND 2 ORS E ------------ Advocate for : MR. R GOSWAMI Advocate for : appearing for JAYMATI KACHARI AND 2 ORS E Linked Case : MACApp./285/2013 JAYMATI KACHARI W/O LT. BIREN CH. KACHARI RESIDING AT VILL. BAGARIBARI PO. BARANGABARI PS. KHOIRABARI DIST. UDALGURI BTAD ASSAM. VERSUS THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD and 2 ORS. DEE TEE TOWERS PENTALON BUILDING NEAR DOWN TOWN HOSPITA GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM REP. BY MANAGER VIDE COVER NOTE NO. A5196302 and POL. NO. 20090V0531450-FCV VALID UPTO 12.12.2010. INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-13-C-1003 TATA SPECIO. 2:MAHENDRA DEKA Page No.# 3/5 S/O LT. BHABI RAM DEKA R/O VILL. BARANGABARI PO. BAANGABARI PS. KHOIRABARI DIST. UDALGURI BTAD ASSAM OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-13-C-1003 TATA SPECIO. 3:DIPAK CH. DAS S/O LT. CHANDI RAM DAS R/O VILL. HUSSAIN CHUBURI PS. SIPAJHAR DIST. DARRANG ASSAM. DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-13-C-1003 TATA SPECIO. ------------ Advocate for : MR.H SARMA Advocate for : MR.R GOSWAMI appearing for THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD and 2 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.05.2026 Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 2. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the name of the respondent/opposite party No. 3, who is the driver of the offending vehicle; may be struck off from the array of this application. 3. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant, it is provided that the name of the respondent/opposite party No. 3 may be struck off from the array of this application, at the cost and risk of the Page No.# 4/5 applicant. 4. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 60 (sixty) days in preferring the Review Petition. 5. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Judgment was passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 285/2013, on 12.01.2024, and the Review Petition could not be filed in time as after the judgment, being passed by this Court on 12.01.2024, the same was transmitted to the Kolkata Office of the applicant on 31.01.2024, for legal opinion and there was a delay in obtaining opinion. Thereafter, the Review Petition was prepared and forwarded to the Kolkata Office, and in the meanwhile, delay of 60 (sixty) days had occurred and the same was not intentional, rather, it was circumstantial; and that the appeal has merit and therefore, it is contended to condone the same and to admit the appeal. 6. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, submits that he has no objection in the event of condoning the delay of 60 days, in preferring the connected Review Petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and also the explanation put forward in paragraph No. 2 of the application, for the delay of 60 (sixty) days in preferring the Review Petition. It appears that the delay has sufficiently been explained. 8. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the explanation, so put forward in the application, they delay of 60 days stands condoned. 9. In view of the order passed in this interlocutory application, the Registry shall Page No.# 5/5 register the Review Petition and list the same before this Court, as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant