Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Gautam Sarkar on 11 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010231232024
2025:GAU-AS:10540
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3454/2024
ASHOK SARKAR
S/O LATE BINOYKRISHNA SARKAR,
RESIDENT OF ANANDA NAGAR, BYE LANE NO. 2 PO PANDU. PS
JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI 12, KAMRUP M ASSAM
VERSUS
GAUTAM SARKAR
S/O LATE BINOY KRISHNA SARKAR,
RESIDENT OF KAMAKHYA GAON, NEAR PITAMBAR SARMA PATH,
MALIGAON CHARIALI, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI 781011, PS JALUKBARI,
DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BISWAS, MR. D MAZUMDAR,MR C GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR S ISLAM, MS R. HAZARIKA,MR. A CHOUDHURY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 11.08.2025
Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Z.
Dutta, learned counsel for the opposite party.
Page No.# 2/3
2. This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is
preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 38 days in preferring the
connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2024, passed by
the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup(M), in Misc. Probate
Case No. 46/2018.
3. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant submits that on account of
failure on the part of the engaged counsel to take necessary steps before the
learned Probate Court, the delay had occasioned and the applicant herein had
lodged one complaint before the Chairman, Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland,
Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh on 22.10.2024, and because of the said delay,
the appeal could not be filed in time, and that the same was not intentional,
rather it was circumstantial. Mr. Biswas also submits that he has arguable point
in the appeal, which is to be heard on merit, and under such circumstances, Mr.
Biswas has contended to condone the delay of 38 days in preferring the
connected appeal.
4. Per contra, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed
the application on the ground that no complaint has been lodged against the
concerned counsel before the Bar Council.
5. However, from page No. 33, Annexure-C of the memo of appeal, it appears
that the applicant had lodged one complaint before the Chairman, Assam,
Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, and in that view of the matter, the
objection so raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party, appears to be
not sustainable.
6. Further, the explanation, so forthcoming for the delay in filing of appeal,
appears to have been sufficiently explained, and therefore, this Court is inclined
Page No.# 3/3
to allow this application. Accordingly, the delay of 38 days in preferring the
connected appeal stands condoned.
7. In terms of above, this I.A. stands allowed.
8. In view of the order passed in this application, now the Registry shall
register the connected appeal and thereafter, list the same before this Court as
soon as practicable.
9. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that has not
been furnished with a copy of the memo of appeal. However, Mr. Biswas,
learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already furnished a copy
of the memo of appeal to the learned counsel for the opposite party.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
