Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010223802025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/940/2026 M/S LUIT VALLEY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. AND ANR (A REGISTERED PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY) LIMITED BY SHARES HAVING ITS REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT A.K. AZAD ROAD, OPPOSITE TO NEPALI MANDIR, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-8, P.O. AND P.S.- PALTANBAZAR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, BEING REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTOR, SRI PRAKASH SHARMA. 2: PRAKASH SHARMA S/O SRI SHREE PRASAD SHARMA R/O 7 A.K. AZAD ROAD OPPOSITE TO NEPALI MANDIR PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-8 P.O. AND P.S.- PALTANBAZAR DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM. ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF M/S LUIT VALLEY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD VERSUS THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, DISTRICT KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR P.W.D. BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR P.O.- KOKRAJHAR DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER Page No.# 2/5 P.W.D. (BUILDING) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. KOKRAJHAR ELECTRICAL DIVISION KOKRAJHAR P.O.- KOKRAJHAR KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. KOKRAJHAR BUILDING DIVISION KOKRAJHAR P.O.- KOKRAJHAR KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 6:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOKRAJHAR DISTRICT KOKRAJHAR P.O.- KOKRAJHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D NANDI, MR. A NANDI,MS P SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, SC, BTC In RFA Case No. 12844/2025 With RFA Case No. 12844/2025 (Filing Number) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 15.07.2026 Page No.# 3/5 [1] Heard Mr. D. Nandi, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. A. Atriya, appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 as well as Ms. N. Barman, appearing on behalf of Mr. D. Nath, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. [2] This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicants praying for condoning the delay of 28 days in preferring the connected regular first appeal wherein, the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2025, passed in Title Suit No. 21 of 2018 has been impugned. [3] Mr. D. Nandi, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that he was engaged by the applicants to file the instant appeal within the period of limitation, however, as he himself (the counsel) was suffering from ailments, he could not preferred the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. [4] In support of his submissions, he has furnished medical documents indicating his ailments therein. [5] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the delay in preferring the connected appeal was entirely due to his lapse as he was ill during the said period. And as such, the applicants may not be made to suffer for lapse which was not there and hence, he prays for condoning the delay of 28 days. [6] Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Page No.# 4/5 Government Counsel submits that considering the grounds shown by the applicants in the instant interlocutory application as well as the short period of delay of 28 days, he does not have any objection if the delay is condoned. [7] On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2,4 and 5 Mr. Atriya has objected to condonation of delay of 28 days on the ground that some of the documents which are annexed along with the instant interlocutory application pertaining to the ailment of the engaged counsel, relates to ailment prior to the date of impugned decree passed in the aforesaid case. [8] He further submits that the applicants have failed to show sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 justifying condonation of delay in this case and as such, he prays for dismissal of this interlocutory application. [9] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. Though it is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay the courts should take a justice oriented approach and take liberal view of the matter wherever it is warranted. [10] In the instant case, it appears that the delay Page No.# 5/5 which has been caused in filing the connected appeal is entirely due to the reasons connected with the engaged counsel of the applicants and the applicants were not at lapse for the said delay. Under such circumstances, they may not be made to suffer due to delay in filing of the connected appeal beyond period of limitation. Moreover, considering that the fact that the delay is only of a short period of 28 days, this court is taking a liberal view of the matter and condoning the delay of 28 days in filing the connected appeal. [11] This interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed. [12] The Registry is directed to register the connected regular first appeal and list the same for admission on 5th August, 2026. JUDGE Comparing Assistant