Gauhati High Court
Union Of India vs Gakul Kalita And Anr on 11 January, 2024
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010238672017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2360/2017
UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER CON, N.F. RAILWAY,
MALIGAON, GUWAHATI 781011
VERSUS
GAKUL KALITA and ANR,
S/O MADHU KALITA, VILL. TEZPUR, MOUZA RAMPUR, DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM, PIN 781132
2:THE COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
GUWAHATI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M CHATTERJEE
Advocate for the Respondent : MRS M D CHOWDHURY (R1)
Linked Case :
UNION OF INDIA
VERSUS
SRI GAKUL KALITA and ANR
Page No.# 2/4
------------
Advocate for :
Advocate for : appearing for SRI GAKUL KALITA and ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 11.01.2024
Heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. K.K.
Bhattacharya, learned Govt. Advocate is present for the respondent no.2. None
appears on call for the respondent no.1, although the name of learned counsel
is reflected in the cause list.
2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the respondent no.1 had
remained absent when the matter was previously listed and called on
15.11.2023 and 28.11.2023. In the order dated 28.11.2023, this Court had
recorded that the respondents had remained absent on three consecutive dates
and for ends of justice, one last chance was granted to the respondents for
appearance.
3. By filing this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the
applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 828 days beyond the period of
limitation in filing the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated
08.12.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in Misc.
Reference Case No. 211/2014 (New)/Misc. Reference Case no. 20/2000 (Old).
4. In this application, it is projected that the applicant was not made as
party in the proceedings of the reference case, which was tried by the learned
District Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. It is also projected that the judgment and
award in the said reference case was passed on 08.12.2014 and that after lapse
Page No.# 3/4
of more than 2 (two) years, the applicant had received a communication dated
08.03.2017 from the Additional Deputy Commissioner (LA), Kamrup, Amingaon
addressed to the Deputy Chief Engineer/CON, N.F. Railway, Maligaon requesting
to deposit the balance decreetal amount of Rs.63,05,880.64 (Rupees sixty three
lakh five thousand eight hundred eighty point six four only) and thereafter, this
application was filed on 14.06.2017 and in the process, there was a delay of 828
days in filing the connected appeal.
5. Although none appears on call for the respondent no.1, the affidavit-
in-opposition filed by the respondent no.1 has been perused. Amongst others, a
defence was taken that this Court by common order dated 26.06.2013 had
disposed of L.A. Appeal Nos. 1/2012 to 31/2012 and remanded those 26
reference cases to the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by
directing all the parties including the General Manager, N.F. Railway to appear
before the learned reference Court on 18.07.2013. The said order is found to be
annexed to this application as Annexure-1.
6. On perusal of the same, the Court does not find that in the order
dated 26.06.2013 passed in connection with the 26 reference cases referred
above, there is any mention made about Misc. Reference Case No. 211/2014
(New)/Misc. Reference Case no. 20/2000 (Old).
7. In paragraph 4 of the objection, it has been mentioned that the
learned District Judge, Amingaon had issued notice to all the parties including
the appellant-applicant, but no document has been annexed to show that any
notice was sent to the applicant in connection with the said Misc. Reference
Case No. 211/2014 (New)/Misc. Reference Case no. 20/2000 (Old). Though it
has been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the objection that the learned District
Judge, Amingaon had issued notice to all the parties including the application,
Page No.# 4/4
but on perusal of the certified copy of the order under appeal, it does not
appear from its cause title that the applicant herein was made a party in Misc.
Reference Case No. 211/2014 (New)/Misc. Reference Case no. 20/2000 (Old).
8. Therefore, the contents of the paragraph 2 to 9 of the affidavit-in-
opposition has no relation with the proceeding of Misc. Reference Case No.
211/2014 (New)/Misc. Reference Case no. 20/2000 (Old). Therefore, the
statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.1
appears to be irrelevant and accordingly, the same is rejected being irrelevant.
Moreover, the Court finds the said statement to be misleading as reference is
made to 26 reference cases, which does not contain the particulars of the Misc.
Reference Case No. 211/2014 (New)/Misc. Reference Case no. 20/2000 (Old).
9. Therefore, having noticed that the applicant was not a party to the
proceedings of the said reference case before the learned Court below, the
Court is inclined to accept the stand of the applicant that they had no notice of
the said reference case.
10. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of delay stands allowed and the
delay of 828 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected appeal
stands condoned.
11. Let the connected appeal be registered and listed in the admission
column. When listing the connected appeal, the names of the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents in this application shall also be reflected.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
