Page No.# 1/3 vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 1125 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010183352019




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3333/2019

            SMTI. CHANDNI DEVI AND 3 ORS
            W/O- LATE PAPU RAI

            2: MISS DIVYA KUMARI
             D/O- LATE PAPU RAI

            3: MASTER DIVYANSU KUMAR
             D/O- LATE PAPU RAI

            4: MISS DIPA KUMARI
             D/O- LATE PAPU RAI
            ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILL.- CHAKJALAL
             BAZIDPUR KARNAL
             DIST.- SAMASTIPUR
             STATE- BIHAR- 848503. (THE APPLICANT NO. 2
             3 AND 4 ARE DULY REP. BY THE APPLICANT NO. 1 AS THE APPLICANT
            NO. 2
             3 AND 4 ARE MINORS AND HAVE NOT ATTAINED THE AGE OF MAJORITY.
            THE APPLICANT NO. 1 IS THE MOTHER OF THE APPLICANT NO. 2
             3 AND 4)

            VERSUS

            THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
            TEZPUR DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TEZPUR, MAIN ROAD TEZPUR, P.O. AND P.S.
            TEZPUR, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM- 784001.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A GANGULY

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R GOSWAMI
                                                                                    Page No.# 2/3


                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                            ORDER

Date : 23-03-2021

Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent.

This application is us u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condoning the delay of 438 days.

The applicants are ordinarily resident of district Samastipur in the State of Bihar. The MACT Judgment was passed on 19.02.2018, and the counsel for the applicants could not communicate them immediately after the passing of the judgment. The applicants further claimed that they did not posses any mobile phones of their own and therefore, when they did not get any information about their case, they came down to Tezpur in the months of May/ 2018, in order to enquire about the fate of the case. Mr. Ganguly submitted that the applicants are laymen and do not have the knowledge about the nitty gritty of legal procedure. Therefore, the delay occurred.

I have also heard the objection raised by Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent.

The true guide for Court to exercise the discretion u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the case. The litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. Infact he runs a serious risk. Judiciary is not respected on account of its power but to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removal injustice and is expected to do so. It is a settled position of law if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be ground to condone the delay.

With the aforesaid observations, the delay stands condoned.

I.A stands disposed of accordingly.

Page No.# 3/3

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant