Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs On The Death Of Rabindra Nath Dutta ... on 3 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010034852017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2725/2017
CHANDAN PAUL CHOUDHURY @ MANOJ PAUL CHOUDHURY and ORS.
S/O. LT. MAKHAN LAL PAUL CHOUDHURY,
2: (c) SRI BINAYAK PAUL CHOUDHURY
S/O. LATE TAPAS PAUL CHOUDHURY @ MALAY PAUL CHOUDHURY
R/O- WARD NO. 2
P.M. DUTTA ROAD
DHUBRI TOWN
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST.- DHUBRI
PIN- 783301
ASSAM.
2: (a) ON THE DEATH OF TAPAS PAUL CHOUDHURY HIS LEGAL HEIRS ARE
-- SMTI PUSHPALATA PAUL CHOUDHURY
WIFE OF LATE TAPAS PAUL CHOUDHURY @ MALAY PAUL CHOUDHURY
R/O- WARD NO. 2
P.M. DUTTA ROAD
DHUBRI TOWN
P.O.
P.S. AND DISTRICT- DHUBRI
PIN- 783301
ASSAM
2: (b) SRI MANOJIT PAUL CHOUDHURY
S/O. LATE TAPAS PAUL CHOUDHURY @ MALAY PAUL CHOUDHURY
R/O.- WARD NO. 2
P.M. DUTTA ROAD
DHUBRI TOWN
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST.- DHUBRI
Page No.# 2/4
PIN- 783301
ASSA
VERSUS
ON THE DEATH OF RABINDRA NATH DUTTA HIS LEGAL HEIR- SMT. JAYA
DUTTA and 2 ORS.
R/O. B. A. 128, SALTLAKE, P.O. BIDHAN NAGAR, KOLKATA.
2:SRI ATINDRA NATH DUTTA
S/O. LT. UPENDRA NATH DUTTA
R/O. 757 BLOCK-P
P.O. NEW ALIPUR
KOLKATA-53.
3:DIBAKAR MAZUMDAR
S/O. LT. SITESH CH. MAZUMDAR
WARD NO. 4
DHUBRI TOWN
P.O. DHUBRI
P.S. DHUBRI
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783301
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P MAHANTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MS.B SARMA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 03-03-2021
Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewala learned senior counel for the respondent.
This application is u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of
839 days in filing the connected Revision Petition.
The applicant intended to file a Revision Petition against the judgment passed in T.S
Page No.# 3/4
No. 196/2009 and Title Appeal No. 85/2011, but the Revision Petition could not be filed in
time and there was a delay of 839 days.
There are many documents to show that both the applicants were suffering from
different serious ailments for which, the second applicant died during the pendency of this
petition. The first applicant was suffering from psychiatric ailment dozens of documents are
filed to support the claim of the applicant.
The respondent objected to the aforesaid prayer of the applicant. There are material in
the record to show that the one of the applicant once appeared before the Criminal Court at
Dhubri during the aforesaid 839 days. There are also material to show that the other
applicant had come to Guwahati for medical treatment. Mr. Sahewala, the learned counsel for
the respondent has submitted that the applicants were negligent and therefore, the delay
occurred.
Mr. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the applicants, on the other hand, has submitted
that the applicants belongs to Dhubri town so, it was easy for them to appear before the local
Criminal Court but that does not mean that they were able to come to Guwahati to filed this
Revision Petition before the High Court.
In order to buttress his point Mr. Sahewala, has riled upon the following decisions:-
1. State of Assam and Ors -Vs- Ramawtar Agarwalla reported in (2019) 8
GLT 150
2. State of Punjab -Vs-Raj Kumar reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 128.
3. Megha Assam (P.) Ltd -Vs- Adabari Wine Shop and Anr reported in
(2019) 6 GLT 129.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel
for the parties. It is a settle law that the words "sufficient cause" referred to by Section 5 of
the Limitation Act 1963, needs to receive liberal construction for advancing substantial justice.
The words "sufficient cause" has its own elasticity to enable the Court to apply the law in a
meaningful manner which sub serves the needs of justice.
Page No.# 4/4
In Improvement Trust, Ludhiana -vs- Ujagar Singh &Ors reported in 2010 (6) SCC 786,
the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held "It is pertinent to point out that unless malafides are
writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned.
In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on
merits rather than to throw it on such technalities".
In State (NCT Of Delhi) -vs- Ahmed Jaan reported in 2008 (14) SCC 562, the Hon,ble Supreme
Court has held, "The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism
in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every
day's delay. The true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the
appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. A litigant does not stand to
benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. Judiciary is not respected on account of its
power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of.
Reverting to the case in hand, the medical documents clearly show that the first applicant was
suffering from psychiatric ailment.
The second applicant ultimately died after his kidney stops working. A normal prudent man is
not expected to look after his litigation better than his own health. In my considered opinion, the
applicant has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
With the aforesaid reasons the delay of 839 days stands condoned.
I.A stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
