Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010020292026 2026:GAU-AS:8872 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/263/2026 BIPIN SWARGIARY SON OF LATE RABIRAM SWARGIARY, RESIDENT OF LAHAPARA, P.O.- BIHAPARA, MOUZA- KAURBAHA, P.S.- TAMULPUR, DISTRICT- BAKSA (BTR), ASSAM, PIN- 781365 VERSUS MD. MAFIZUDDIN AHMED SON OF LATE MONCHER ALI, RESIDENT OF - KHANDIKAR, P.O. DEULKUCHI, MOUZA- KAURBAHA, P.S.- TAMULPUR, DISTRICT- BAKSA (BTR), ASSAM, PIN - 781354 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PAUL, Advocate for the Respondent : MR P KATAKI, MS. A LALA,MR D CHAKRABORTY Linked Case : ITREF(A)/0/0 SRI BIPIN SWARGIARY ASSAM VERSUS MD MAFIZUDDIN AHMED ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 ------------ Advocate for : MR ASHIM PAUL Advocate for : appearing for MD MAFIZUDDIN AHMED BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 19.06.2026 Heard Mr. A Paul, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. A Lala, learned counsel for the sole respondent. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the applicant has sought condonation of a delay of 83 days in preferring the connected Regular First Appeal against the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baksa, Mushalpur in M.S. No. 01/2018. The explanation offered by the applicant indicates that the delay occurred on account of a communication gap between the applicant and his engaged counsel, coupled with the fact that the certified copies remained in the custody of the said counsel for some time. It has also been stated that the applicant was preoccupied with proceedings arising out of a criminal case registered against him and was consequently unable to take prompt steps for filing the appeal. Thereafter, upon obtaining legal advice, the applicant approached the present counsel and the appeal was prepared and filed. Ms. Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has opposed the prayer by contending that the grounds assigned are vague and do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. This Court has considered the rival submissions. The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled that a liberal approach is required to be adopted where the Page No.# 3/3 explanation furnished does not disclose any deliberate inaction, negligence, lack of bona fides or mala fide intention on the part of the litigant. In the present case, the reasons assigned by the applicant, though not ideal, cannot be said to be wholly implausible or lacking in bona fides. The explanation offered covers the period of delay and there is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or motivated by any ulterior purpose. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in order to advance substantial justice, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of the delay of 83 days in filing the connected appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 83 days in preferring the connected Regular First Appeal stands condoned. The interlocutory application is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. Registry shall register and number the connected Regular First Appeal and list the same for admission in due course. JUDGE Comparing Assistant