Gauhati High Court
Lal Babu Sah vs Maneshwar Thakur And Anr on 27 August, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010020872022
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/775/2022
LAL BABU SAH
S/O LATE LAKHI SAH,
RESIDENT OF ASEB ROAD, WARD NO. 6, NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE, PO
TEZPUR, DIST SONITPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
MANESHWAR THAKUR AND ANR.
S/O LATE JOGESHWAR THAKUR,
RESIDENT OF ASEB ROAD, WARD NO. 6, NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE, PO
TEZPUR, DIST SONITPUR, ASSAM
2:SMTI REKHA DEVI THAKUR
W/O SRI MANESHWAR THAKUR
RESIDENT OF ASEB ROAD
WARD NO. 6
NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE
PO TEZPUR
DIST SONITPUR
ASSAM
3:SMTI GAURI GOWAL
W/O LATE DHANPAL GOWALA
RESIDENT OF ASEB ROAD
WARD NO. 6
NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE
PO TEZPUR
DIST SONITPUR
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
4:SRI MANOJ GOWALA
S/O LATE GHANPAL GOWALA
RESIDENT OF ASEB ROAD
WARD NO. 6
NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE
PO TEZPUR
DIST SONITPUR
ASSAM
5:SMTI RITA GOWALA
D/O LATE DHANPAL GOWALA
RESIDENT OF ASEB ROAD
WARD NO. 6
NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE
PO TEZPUR
DIST SONITPUR
ASSAM
6:MASTER SUBODH GOWALA (MINOR)
S/O LATE DHANPAL GOWALA
RESIDENT OF ASEB ROAD
WARD NO. 6
NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE
PO TEZPUR
DIST SONITPUR
ASSAM
7:MASTER NARKA GOWALA (MINOR)
S/O LATE DHANPAR GOWALA
RESIDENT OF ASEB ROAD
WARD NO. 6
NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE
PO TEZPUR
DIST SONITPUR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P ROY, MS S DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : MS D DEVI (R1,2), MR. S BISWAS (R1,2)
Page No.# 3/4
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
27.08.2024
Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as
Mr. S. Biswas, the learned counsel representing the opposite parties.
2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for
condonation of 772 days of delay in filing the Regular Second Appeal.
3. According to the applicant, the delay occurred because the office chamber of the
learned counsels for the applicant was under renovation. Mr. Roy has submitted that
the applicant is not responsible for the delay. According to Mr. Roy, his office chamber
was under renovation and that is why the delay occurred.
4. Mr. Biswas has submitted that the delay was not of 772 days. According to Mr.
Biswas, the delay was more than 1500 days. The judgment was passed by the first
appellate court on 14.09.2017 and therefore, the appeal should have been filed in the
month of November, 2017. Mr. Biswas has submitted that the relaxation of time
granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court because of COVID-19 started after that. The
said relaxation started on 15.03.2020.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.
6. The delay is for more than 1520 days. The office chamber of the learned counsel
for the applicant was under renovation and that is why the delay happened. This Court
is of the opinion that the inordinate delay and the ground shown for delay are not
satisfactory. More than 4(four) years of delay has not been satisfactorily explained.
Page No.# 4/4
Therefore, the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected.
With the above direction, the present Interlocutory Application is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
