Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010006722025 2026:GAU-AS:8711 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/268/2025 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 87, M.G. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT STAR CITY COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, LACHIT NAGAR NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-781007. VERSUS ARPANA KALITA AND 4 ORS W/O. LT. SHON KALITA 2:BARASHA KALITA D/O. LT SHON KALITA 3:MANISHA KALITA D/O. LT SHON KALITA ALL ARE R/O. VILL. TERESIA P/O. TERESIA P/S. NALBARI DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781334. RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS ARE REP. BY THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 1 4:PABAN BAISHYA S/O. LT. TARUN RAM BAISHYA R/O. VILL. GHARAMARA P/O. DHAMDHAMA P/S. GHAGRAPAR DIST. NALBARI ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 PIN-781369. 5:RINA KALITA D/O. LT SHON KALITA R/O. VILL. BARIKADANGA P/S. BARBARI DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN-781343 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. P BORTHAKUR,MS. M SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : DR. U BARUAH (R-1,2,3), MR. R SHARMA (R-5),MS P SARMA (R-5),MR. S K GOSWAMI (R-5),MR. A BHATTACHARYYA(R-1,2,3),RANJU R S BARUAH(R- 1,2,3) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 17.06.2026 Heard Ms. P. Borthakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Office note dated 20.11.2025 indicates that service report on respondent No.4 arrived with remark that respondent No.4 passed away almost a year ago. Learned counsel for the applicant prays that the name of respondent No.4 may be struck off from the array of respondents. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the name of respondent No.4 is struck off from the array Page No.# 3/3 of the respondents. The present application has been filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the connected MAC Appeal against the judgment and award dated 04.07.2024 passed by the MACT, Kamrup(M) in MAC Case No. 2340/2017. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the main cause for the delay is set out in paragraph 4 of the application. The Court has perused the application and satisfied that the sufficient cause has been shown for the delay of 45 days in filing the MAC Appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 45 days in filing the connected MAC Appeal is condoned and the application stands disposed of. Registry is directed to register the appeal and list the matter for admission after summer vacation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant