Gauhati High Court
Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smti Minu Goswami Devi And 5 Ors on 5 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010056802020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1169/2020
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI
781007 REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL
OFFICE, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 781007
VERSUS
SMTI MINU GOSWAMI DEVI AND 5 ORS
W/O LATE UDAY CH. SARMA, R/O VILL. PUB BORKA, P.O. PUB BORKA, P.S.
KAMALPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN 781101
2:HEMENDRA SARMA
S/O LATE UDAY CH. SARMA
R/O VILL. PUB BORKA
P.O. PUB BORKA
P.S. KAMALPUR
DIST. KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
PIN 781101
3:SAILENDRA SARMA
S/O LATE UDAY CH. SARMA
R/O VILL. PUB BORKA
P.O. PUB BORKA
P.S. KAMALPUR
DIST. KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
PIN 781101
4:BHASKAR SARMA
S/O LATE UDAY CH. SARMA
(OPPOSITE PATY NO. 3 AND 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY OPPOSITE PARTY
Page No.# 2/4
NO. 1) R/O VILL. PUB BORKA
P.O. PUB BORKA
P.S. KAMALPUR
DIST. KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
PIN 781101
5:DILIP CH. MAHANTA
S/O LATE RAMA CHARAN MAHANTA
R/O MALIGAON
SHUTTLE GATE
RLY QTR NO. 138
P.O. MALIGAON
P.S. JALUKBARI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN 78101
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R D MOZUMDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. O P BHATI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 05-08-2022
Heard Ms. R.D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D.
Mondal, learned counsel for the opposite party/ respondent.
This interlocutory application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 for condoning the delay of 1517 days in filing the cross-objection.
The applicant has preferred a cross-objection against the appeal filed by the
claimant/ respondent with a prayer to condone the delay of 1517 days beyond
the period of limitation in filing the cross-objection in the appeal against the
judgment and order dated 07.04.2015, passed by the learned Member, MACT
No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1520/2011.
Page No.# 3/4
It is stated in the cross-objection that on receipt of the copies and after
going through the lower Court's record on 11.02.2022, it was found that the
claimant had exhibited two documents vide Ext. No. 4 and Ext. No. 7 as income
proof of the deceased but those two documents were totally contradictory and it
was found that there was misrepresentation made by the claimant to get
compensation. Thereafter, after consultation, it was decided that cross objection
to be filed as fraud/ misrepresentation which is involved in this case.
Against the said cross- objection, the opposite party /claimant submitted
written objection wherein it is stated that the delay application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, is nothing but to delay the procedure of the appeal. It is
also stated that there was no misrepresentation made by the claimants but the
Insurance Company to cover up their blatant negligence hatched a new story of
fraud and prayed to reject the prayer of the petitioner.
After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the
records, it appears that the cross-objection has been filed challenging the salary
certificate/ income proof of the deceased. It is an important issue to be taken
up by filing cross-objection.
The learned counsel for the applicant contended that as per Order 41 rule
22 of the CPC, cross objection is to be filed within one month of fixing the case
for hearing.
It appears that the main appeal is not taken up for hearing.
Under such backdrop, it cannot be said that cross-objection was filed
beyond the period of limitation.
In view of the above, the prayer of the applicant is allowed and the delay of
1517 days is hereby condoned. Cross-objection is admitted
Page No.# 4/4
The I.A. stands disposed of
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
