Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010195432025 2026:GAU-AS:7773 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2941/2025 ON THE DEATH OF JEBUN NEHAR HOQUE, HER LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY SAMSUL HOQUE AND 2 ORS S/O- LATE SAMSER ABEDIN, 2: RASHIDUL HAQUE SON OF SAMSUL HOQUE 3: SALIMUL HAQUE SON OF SAMSUL HOQUE ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF R/O DHUBRI TOWN WARD NO 7 P.O. P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78330 VERSUS BEGUM SURAIYA PARBIN AND 2 ORS W/O ENAMUL ISLAM, R/O WARD NO. 10, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. DUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783301 2:NASIMA BEGUM W/O-ABDUL SABIR R/O - DHUBRI TOWN WARD NO. 7 P.O. P.S. AND DIST. - DHUBRI ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 PIN CODE-783301. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS COLLECTOR / DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST. - DHUBRI ASSAM PIN CODE - 783301 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, S SEKH,MR S ISLAM,MR S H MAHMUD Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Linked Case : CS/0/0 ON THE DEATH OF JEBUN NEHAR HOQUE HER LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY SAMSUL HOQUE AND ORS DHUBRI VERSUS BEGUM SURAIYA PARBIN AND ORS DHUBRI ------------ Advocate for : SAIFUL ISLAM Advocate for : appearing for BEGUM SURAIYA PARBIN AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 03.06.2026 Heard Mr. M.U. Mahumd, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. K.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the Page No.# 3/7 respondent No. 3. 2. This Court by order dated 06.05.2026, issued notice which was made returnable on 03.06.2026. From the office note dated 30.05.2026, it is seen that as per the postal endorsement, the respondent No. 1 had already expired and in respect of respondent No. 2, the postal remark is that “no such person in the address”. 3. However, in view of the nature of the order which is proposed to be passed, at this juncture, issuance of notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is dispensed with. 4. From the contents of the application, it is seen that this is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 4200 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected review petition against the order dated 20.01.2014, passed by this Court in RSA 18/2014. 5. On a perusal of the order dated 20.01.2014, passed by this Court in RSA 18/2014, which is appended to the unregistered review petition, it is seen that the applicant/appellant therein, the respondent No. 1, and the respondent No. 2 had purchased three contiguous plots of land from its owner in the year 1995 by 3 (three) separate sale deeds. 6. The case of the applicants is that on 05.07.1996, the appellant in RSA 18/2014 and the respondent No. 1 had made an unregistered agreement to leave a vacant land between the two plots of land measuring 21/2 feet in breadth and 104 feet in length from their respective plots to be used as a common passage. Page No.# 4/7 7. Accordingly, as nothing materialized, the applicants had instituted T.S. No. 383/2005 seeking a declaration and consequential reliefs. 8. This Court, while deciding RSA 18/2014, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence and on a perusal of the said agreement (Ext. 4), arrived at a conclusion that the agreement was executed on 05.07.1996 and the same bears the signature dated 18.12.1997 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhubri, arrived at a conclusion that the agreement was made on 05.07.1996 and the same was placed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 18.12.1997 and the learned Magistrate had put his signature on the agreement on 18.12.1997. Accordingly, this Court concurred with the finding of the learned Courts below that the agreement was made on 18.12.1997, and accordingly, as the question whether the agreement was made on 18.12.1997 or on 05.07.1996, being a question of fact, which was a concurrent finding of fact in respect of the date of execution of the agreement, this Court found no substantial question of law and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 9. Accordingly, a connected review application was filed on 21.08.2025, and according to the calculation made by the Registry, the delay was calculated at 4200 days. However, the applicants dispute and project that the delay was 3485 days, taking into account the order dated 10.01.2022, passed by the Supreme Court of India in Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2022 in M.A. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2020, wherein the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation with regard to any judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. 10. The Court also takes note of the fact that in claiming right to the path, Page No.# 5/7 the applicant had previously instituted T.S. 383/2005. The said suit was dismissed by the Court of learned Munsiff, Dhubri. 11. Thereafter, the deceased applicant No. 1, namely Jebun Nehar Hoque, had filed an appeal which was numbered as T.A. No. 61/2011. However, the said first appeal was also dismissed. 12. Thereafter, the concurrent finding regarding dismissal of the suit and the appeal was assailed by the deceased applicant No. 1 by filing a regular second appeal which was numbered as RSA 18/2014. The said second appeal was also dismissed by an order dated 20.01.2014. 13. The order dated 20.01.2014, passed in RSA 18/2014 has already attained finality. However, the deceased applicant No. 1 once again filed a suit, which was registered as T.S. No. 301/2014, which was also dismissed. 14. The dismissal of the second suit was assailed in an appeal which was registered as T.A. No. 69/2015. However, this first appeal in the second suit was also dismissed. 15. Thereafter, the deceased applicant No. 1 filed a regular second appeal which was filed under filing No. RSA 1661/2018. There were mistakes in the said appeal which were not rectified, and it is the admitted case of the applicant that the said second appeal, bearing filing No. 1661/2018, was dismissed by an order dated 14.08.2018. 16. In the meanwhile, the opposite party namely Jebun Nehar Hoque had passed away, and the present applicants are the legal representatives of the Page No.# 6/7 deceased plaintiff in T.S. No. 383/2005 and T.S. No. 301/2014 and they have filed this connected review application for review of the order dated 20.01.2014 by which RSA 18/2014 was dismissed. 17. As the proceedings of RSA 18/2014 were dismissed by an order dated 20.01.2014, the applicants would not get the benefit of extension of limitation by virtue of the order dated 10.01.2022, passed by the Supreme Court of India, referred to above. Therefore, the delay would be 4200 days as calculated by the Registry. 18. The original plaintiff, namely Jebun Nehar Hoque, cannot be said to be not aware of the dismissal of RSA 18/2014, and therefore, filing of the subsequent suit, being T.S. No. 301/2014, appears to be a misadventure. Nonetheless, the original plaintiff had assailed the dismissal of T.S. No. 301/2014 by filing a first appeal, and thereafter, approaching this Court by way of a second appeal, and on dismissal of the second appeal in the second suit under filing number 1661/2018, by order dated 14.08.2018 for not rectifying the mistake, it appears to be a good ground not to condone the delay of 4200 days so as to enable the Court to exercise the power of review against the order dated 20.01.2014, passed in RSA 18/2014, wherein it was held that no substantial question of law was made out for admission of the appeal. 19. Accordingly, having found that no case is made out on merit for condoning the delay of 4200 days beyond the period of limitation in filing a review against the order dated 20.01.2014, passed in RSA 18/2014, this interlocutory application for condoning the delay stands dismissed. 20. Consequently, the unregistered review petition, bearing filing number Page No.# 7/7 10900/2025, also stands dismissed. 21. The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order to the learned Trial Court and the learned first appellate Court for making it a part of relevant records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant