Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Page No.# 2/4 on 9 August, 2024
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010268832023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3821/2023
ANJUMANI HALADAR @ HALDAR AND 3 ORS.
W/O LATE PRADIP HALADAR @ HALDAR,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANDIRA, NANKE 781127, PS NAGARBERA, DIST
KAMRUP M ASSAM
2: ANUPRIYA HALDAR
D/O LATE PRADIP HALADAR @ HALDAR
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANDIRA
NANKE 781127
PS NAGARBERA
DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM
TO BE REP. BY PET. NO. 1
3: SUPRIYA HALDAR
D/O LATE PRADIP HALADAR @ HALDAR
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANDIRA
NANKE 781127
PS NAGARBERA
DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM
TO BE REP. BY PET. NO. 1
4: BAKUL HALADAR
W/O LATE BALORAM HALDAR
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANDIRA
NANKE 781127
PS NAGARBERA
DIST KAMRUP M ASSA
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/4
LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ANR.
3B GANAPATI ENCLAVE, BORA SERVICE, GS ROAD, PO GUWAHATI 781007,
DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM
2:ANKIT SINGH PATEL
S/O DEV PRASAD SINGH PATEL
C/O GMCH BHANGAGARH
PO INDRAPUR
PS GUWAHATI 781032
DIST KAMRUP M ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R AGARWALA, MR ADITYA AGARWALA,MD. K ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
Linked Case :
ANJUMANI HALADAR @ HALDAR AND 3 ORS.
VERSUS
LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ANR. B
------------
Advocate for : MR. A R AGARWALA
Advocate for : appearing for LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
AND ANR. B
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
ORDER
Date : 09-08-2024
Heard Mr. A. R. Agarwala, learned counsel for the applicant.
Page No.# 3/4
No one appears on behalf of the respondent .
Office note dated 27.06.2024 reflect that the notice upon the respondent
no. 1 has been received with the seal and signature of the Insurance company,
and the notice upon the respondent no. 2 returned with the comment that the
respondent was not found at his address and the process server even rang up
on his mobile to give him notice, but the respondent no. 2 did not receive the
call.
In view of the above, the notice upon the respondent no. 1 is deemed to
have been completed, however, no one appears on behalf of the respondent no.
1.
Mr. A. R. Agarwala, learned counsel submits that the main appeal is for
enhancement and the presence of the respondent no. 2 in this delay
condonation application is not required, hence, prays for striking off the name of
respondent no. 2 from the array of the delay condonation application.
Accordingly, the name of respondent no. 2 stands struck off from the array
of the delay condonation application.
This is an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for
condonation of delay of 44 days in preferring the connected appeal against the
judgment and order dated 31.05.2022, passed by the learned Member, MACT
No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in MAC case no. 1368/2020.
The ground for delay in not preferring the connected appeal on time has
been explained in para 3, 4, and 5 of the application.
Page No.# 4/4
Upon consideration of the above explanation, this Court is satisfied that
the applicant has been able to show sufficient cause for not preferring the
connected appeal within the stipulated time. Moreover, since the respondent no.
1 did not appear even after receipt of the notice, it is presumed that the said
respondent does not have any objection to the condonation of delay in filing the
connected appeal.
In view of the above, the delay of 44 days in preferring the connected
appeal is hereby condoned.
With the above, this IA stands disposed of.
The Office shall register the connected appeal, and list it for admission.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
