Krishna Dey vs Gopal Das
2024 Latest Caselaw 3339 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Krishna Dey vs Gopal Das on 15 May, 2024

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                       Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010037882013




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

                                    Case No. : MC/1426/2013

            KRISHNA DEY
            S/O LATE KALIPRASANNA DEY, M/S NEW AKASH BANI CASSETTE/RADIO
            SHOP, JAGIROAD TOWN, MOUZA- GOVA, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            GOPAL DAS
            S/O LATE RADHIKA MOHAN DAS, VILL. NA - KHULA GRANT, P.O. and P.S.
            JAGIROAD, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM



             For the Applicant(s)               : None appears.

             For the Respondent(s)             : None appears.




                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                                           ORDER

Date : 15.05.2024

None appears for the Applicant on call.

2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 272 days in filing the revision application against the Page No.# 2/2

judgment and decree dated 15.12.2011 passed in Title Appeal No.13/2010 whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2010 passed in Title Suit No.19/2001 by the learned Munsiff No.1, Morigaon was upheld.

3. This Court had duly taken note of that on the earlier occasion, the Applicant was duly represented however the counsel for the Applicant had filed an affidavit on 18.11.2022 stating inter alia that the Applicant herein has been duly intimated about their withdrawal. It is under such circumstances, on 10.03.2023, this Court made a clear observation that the names of the counsel for the Applicant are struck off who were earlier representing the Applicant and the Applicant was directed to take appropriate steps for making alternative arrangements. In spite of a passage of more than 1 (one) year, no steps have been taken. Under such circumstances, it seems that the Applicant is no longer interested in the instant proceedings for which the instant application stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. The consequential affect of the instant application being dismissed is that the accompanying revision application so filed cannot be entertained being barred by limitation.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant