Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010144592023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2046/2023 PALLABI DEKA W/O BALOBHADRA DEKA, R/O GOTANAGAR, P.O.- GOTANAGAR, P.S.- JALUKBARI, PIN- 781033, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS SARAJU KUMARI AND ANR. W/O LATE HARI CHARAN KUMAR, R/O GOTANAGAR, P.O.- GOTANAGAR, P.S.- JALUKBARI, PIN- 781033, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2:BALOBHADRA DEKA S/O SUREN CH. DEKA R/O GOTANAGAR P.O.- GOTANAGAR P.S.- JALUKBARI PIN- 781033 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H NATH, MR. R SARMA,MS D DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR S DUTTA, MR. S C BISWAS(R-1),MS S SIDDIQUA(R-1),MR. A IKBAL (R-1),D GOGOI (R-2),MR U.SARMAH,MR. H SARMAH Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Ikbal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 2. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is preferred by the applicant for condoning the delay of 210 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 340/2021. 3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati (‘trial Court’, for short) has pronounced the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022 ex- parte, and that in Title Suit No. 340/2021, instituted by the opposite party No. 1 as plaintiff, the applicant had appeared on 21.12.2021 and engaged one Advocate, namely, Utpal Pathak to take steps and to file written statement on her behalf, and also to inform her about the progress of the case. Mr. Sarma also submits that the applicant was under bona fide impression that her engaged counsel would take necessary steps and would file written statement on her behalf, but, unfortunately, the said counsel did not take any steps and also did not appear in the said suit and also did not intimate her and therefore, the learned trial Court has passed the ex-parte decree. Mr. Sarma further submits that on 24.05.2023, when the bailiff of the Court came to the suit property and sought to recover possession of the same pursuant Page No.# 3/8 to the order passed by the learned executing Court, in Title Execution Case No. 39/2022, she came to know about the outcome of the case, and that she was out of station on 24.05.2023 and she returned on 31.05.2023, and came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022, and thereafter, on 01.06.2023, the applicant visited the chamber of her counsel and took back the file and thereafter, handed over the same to the present set of counsel on 02.06.2023. Thereafter, she obtained the certified copy and handed over the same to the counsel for preparation of memorandum of appeal and in the process, delay of 210 days occurred and that the same is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and the connected appeal merits consideration, and under such circumstances, he has contended to allow this application by condoning the aforesaid delay. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ikbal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, by referring to the written objection filed by the opposite party No. 1, submits that the applicant is a builder, who under an agreement with the opposite party No. 1, had constructed a building and thereafter, she denied the share of the opposite party No. 1, for which the opposite party No. 1 had instituted the title suit for declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit property and in the title suit, being Title Suit No. 340/2021, the counsel for the applicant entered appearance, but no written statement was filed, for which the learned trial Court had proceeded ex-parte and pronounced the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022. Mr. Ikbal also submits that the applicant is not a rustic lady, rather she is a builder and the grounds, so assigned by throwing the responsibility upon the shoulder of her Advocate, are Page No.# 4/8 not at all satisfactory, and that the delay has not been properly explained, and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the application. 4.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Ikbal has referred to two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajneesh Kumar and Anr. vs. Ved Prakash, in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 935-936 of 2021 and Nitin Mahadeo Jawale and Ors. vs. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) .... of 2024 (Arising out of Diary No. 25784/2024). 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Ikbal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 6. Indisputably, the ex-parte judgment and decree was passed by the learned trial Court on 30.08.2022, in Title Suit No. 340/2021, but the present connected appeal was preferred on 24.07.2023, and there is delay of 210 days in preferring the said connected appeal. It also appears that the only ground assigned by the applicant is that she had engaged her counsel and asked him to prepare the written statement and also to apprise her about the progress of the case, but her counsel did not take any steps. Further, admittedly, no complain was lodged against the said counsel also by the applicant herein. 7. In the case of Rajneesh Kumar (supra), referred by Mr. Ikbal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court Page No.# 5/8 has observed that carelessness and negligence on the part of the concerned lawyer itself cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the Court initiated at this instance. It has also been observed that the litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. Same proposition of law is also reiterated in the case of Nitin Mahadeo Jawale (supra). 8. Besides, the law in relation to condonation of delay is well settled in a catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. And most cited of them, amongst others, are: (i) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107; (ii) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123; (iii) Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 and (iv) Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. vs. Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr., in Civil Appeal Nos. .............of 2008 @ SLP(C)Nos. 21011-21014 of 2007. 8.1. In the aforesaid cases, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that courts are not supposed to legalize injustice, but are obliged to remove Page No.# 6/8 injustice. Therefore, liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach has to be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay if ‘sufficient cause’ is being shown. The terms ‘sufficient cause’ should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose and regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. The paramount and pivotal consideration is substantial justice; the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. In respect of deliberate causation of delay the presumption is not available but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of, besides lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay, which is a significant and relevant fact. The courts should not adhere to strict proof, but are required to be vigilant so that there is no real failure of justice. The approach of the court must be liberal but at the same time it must be reasonable also. In case of inordinate delay, strict approach is required to be taken while in case of delay of short duration, a liberal delineation is required. The fundamental principle, being weighing the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. While condoning delay the conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. In the case of the explanation, being offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such litigation. The entire gamuts of facts are to be carefully Page No.# 7/8 scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. The State or a public body or an entity, representing a collective cause, should be given some acceptable latitude. But, the law of limitation is same for citizen and for governmental authorities. 9. In the case in hand, the only explanation forthcoming for the delay from the applicant is that she had engaged her counsel and asked him to prepare the written statement and also to apprise her about the progress of the case, but her counsel did not take any steps. There is no explanation as to why she had not enquired about filing of written statement and also about the progress of the same, though she owes a duty to be vigilant of her own rights, which is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the Court. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar (supra) and Nitin Mahadeo Jawale (supra), carelessness and negligence on the part of the concerned lawyer itself cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay and that the litigant should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. 10. This court is not oblivious of the fact that the approach of the court should be liberal and pragmatic. But, the conduct, behavior and attitude of the applicant relating to its inaction or negligence, which are also relevant factors to be taken into consideration. 11. Thus, having carefully examined the entire gamut of facts and also Page No.# 8/8 relying upon the ratio laid down in the cases of Rajneesh Kumar (supra) and Nitin Mahadeo Jawale (supra), this court is of the considered opinion that the ground, so assigned by the applicant for the delay of 210 days in preferring the connected appeal, is not sufficiently explained. 12. And in that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that if liberal approach is taken in condoning the delay, then the respondent/opposite party, in whose favour already a right has been accrued with the elapse of limitation period, will suffer serious prejudice. And as such, no case for liberal approach is made out. 13. In the result, this Court finds this application devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 14. In view of dismissal of this I.A., the connected RFA and interlocutory application also stand dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant