Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010251922024 2026:GAU-AS:7592 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3994/2024 ON THE DEATH OF MD ANOWAR HUSSAIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS MINUARA RAHMAN AND ORS W/O LATE ANOWAR ANOWAR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF SARANIA, ISLAMPUR, PS PALTAN BAZAAR,GUWAHATI 07, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 2: NAJLIN RAHMAN BARBHUYA W/O BABUL HUSSAIN BARBHUYAN D/O LATE ANOWAR ANOWAR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF SARANIA ISLAMPUR PS PALTAN BAZAAR GUWAHATI 07 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 3: NAZMA RAHMAN BARBHUYAN W/O KAMAL UDDIN BARBHUYAN D/O LATE ANOWAR ANOWAR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF SARANIA ISLAMPUR PS PALTAN BAZAAR GUWAHATI 07 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 4: RESHMA RAHMAN D/O LATE ANOWAR ANOWAR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF SARANIA ISLAMPUR PS PALTAN BAZAAR GUWAHATI 07 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 5: AZAHAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE ANOWAR ANOWAR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF SARANIA ISLAMPUR PS PALTAN BAZAAR GUWAHATI 07 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 6: RUKIYA RAHMAN D/O LATE ANOWAR ANOWAR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF SARANIA ISLAMPUR PS PALTAN BAZAAR GUWAHATI 07 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 7: ALISHA RAHMAN D/O LATE ANOWAR ANOWAR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF SARANIA ISLAMPUR PS PALTAN BAZAAR GUWAHATI 07 DIST KAMRUP M ASSA VERSUS SYED AKBAR ALI S/O SYED ABDUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF HAJO, FAKIRTALA, DIST KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SHEELADITYA, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A SATTAR, FOR CAVEATOR,S CHOUDHURY Linked Case : ON THE DEATH OF MD ANOWAR HUSSAIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS MINUARA RAHMAN AND ORS Page No.# 3/6 VERSUS SYED AKBAR ALI ------------ Advocate for : MR. SHEELADITYA Advocate for : appearing for SYED AKBAR ALI Linked Case : ON THE DEATH OF MD ANOWAR HUSSAIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS MINUARA RAHMAN AND ORS VERSUS SYED AKBAR ALI ------------ Advocate for : MR. SHEELADITYA Advocate for : appearing for SYED AKBAR ALI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 01.06.2026 Heard Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the respondent caveator. 2. By filing this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant, who is the appellant in the connected appeal, has prayed for condoning the delay of 370 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the Page No.# 4/6 connected appeal. 3. The reason assigned for the delay is that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was obtained on 16.11.2023, which is annexed to the memo of appeal. However, it did not contain the names of legal representatives of the deceased appellant, who had died on 18.01.2022 and whose legal representatives were substituted by order dated 05.07.2022. Accordingly, the applicant filed an application for correction of the cause title of the judgment and decree. The said application was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 959/2023, in connection with T.A. No. 69/2017 and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, by an order dated 17.08.2024, admitted the overlooking of recording of the names of the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, Md. Anowar Hussain, whose names were already present in the Memo of Appeal. 4. Accordingly, holding the said error to be a typographical error, the same was corrected by applying Section 152 of the CPC, and the names of the legal representatives of the deceased appellant were brought on record and the said Misc.(J) Case No. 959/2023 was disposed of. 5. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that this petition was filed on 26.11.2024, which is after the passing of the order dated 17.08.2024. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for condoning the delay. It is submitted that as the legal representatives of the appellant were already impleaded by order dated 05.07.2022 and the applicants had obtained the certified copy of the judgment on 16.11.2023, there was no impediment for the appellants to file the appeal and annex to it a copy Page No.# 5/6 of the order dated 05.07.2022 allowing substitution. 7. Accordingly, it is submitted that there was delay and laches in filing the connected appeal within a reasonable time after the passing of the first appellate judgment and decree. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this application and the connected appeal. 8. It is noted that on 03.10.2023, the applicants had applied for the certified copy of the first appellate judgment dated 23.08.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. The certified copy was made over to the applicants on 16.11.2023. Thereafter, the applicants had preferred an application for correction of the judgment and order, which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 959/2023, and that the said case was allowed by order dated 17.08.2024, whereby the learned first appellate Court had admitted the mistake of overlooking the names of the appellants, which were already on record. 9. Therefore, as the Misc.(J) Case No. 959/2023 was filed in the year 2023 itself for correction of the cause title of the first appellate judgment passed on 23.08.2023, the time which was spent in pursuing Misc.(J) Case No. 959/2023 is a good and sufficient reason that has explained the delay from the date of passing of the impugned judgment and the consequential correction of the order dated 17.08.2024. 10. Therefore, the delay appears to be only 101 days from the date of the passing of the order dated 17.08.2024, whereby the first appellate judgment dated 23.08.2023 was corrected. 11. Therefore, the period of limitation, in the opinion of the Court would run from the date of the correction, which is 23.08.2023. Accordingly, out of 101 Page No.# 6/6 days' delay, 90 days is available for filing of the appeal, and therefore, effective delay is only 11 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the appeal. 12. For the reasons as discussed above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants had been able to show good and sufficient causes, which have caused the delay in filing of the connected appeal. Accordingly, the said delay of 370 days, which is actually found to be 11 days only, as indicated above, stands condoned. 13. Registry shall now register the connected appeal and list the same for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC. 14. This interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant