Page No.# 1/2 vs Rozina Parbin
2025 Latest Caselaw 9501 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/2 vs Rozina Parbin on 16 December, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010121762025




                                                                   2025:GAU-AS:17393

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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1820/2025

            JAMAL UDDIN AHMED
            S/O LATE AMANULLAH @ BOGA MASTER, VILL- SOUTH RANGAPANI
            PART II, P.S.- BOKO, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            ROZINA PARBIN
            W/O JAMAL UDDIN AHMED, D/O ROFIJUL MONDAL, R/O VILL- DOLGOMA,
            COLLEGE PARA, P.S.- MATIA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN-783339



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A ALI, MR. Y ALI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. I H SAIKIA, MR. B BORAH,MR. K KALITA,MR K
KASHYAB

                                  BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

                                           ORDER

Date : 16-12-2025

Learned counsel Mr. A. Ali is present for the applicant.

2. Learned counsel Mr. I.H. Saikia is present for the respondent.

3. This is an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 with prayer for condonation of delay of 156 (One Hundred Fifty Six) days in the Page No.# 2/2

connected Civil Revision Petition.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2024 passed in connection with Title Suit No. 19/2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Goalpara. On 19.11.2024, a first appeal was filed and as the appeal was filed under wrong perception, the same was withdrawn. Subsequently, the present revision petition was filed. This resulted in the delay.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent laid stress in his argument that the delay has not been properly mentioned. It is not on the record when the petition under wrong perception was filed and when it was withdrawn. Sufficient grounds have not been shown and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection.

7. It appears that sufficient reasons have been assigned by the application. It appears that there was no malafide on the part of the applicant. No inaction is discernible. It appears that delay may be condoned. Thereby, the delay of 156 (One Hundred Fifty Six) days in filing the connected revision petition subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) to be paid to the respondent.

8. In terms of the above observation, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

9. Registry to register the connected Civil Revision Petition.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant