Hemen Das vs Putumoni Das
2025 Latest Caselaw 3400 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Hemen Das vs Putumoni Das on 21 February, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010202792024




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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3156/2024

            HEMEN DAS
            S/O LATE HARKUMAR DEB
            RESIDENT OF SIBNAGAR, BORJHAR , AIRPORT, PO AND PS AZARA, DIST
            KAMRUP M ASSAM 781017



            VERSUS

            PUTUMONI DAS
            W/O BIPUL CHANDRA DAS,
            RESIDENT OF SIBNAGAR, BORJHAR , AIRPORT, PO AND PS AZARA, DIST
            KAMRUP M ASSAM 781017

            2:SRI BIPUL CHANDRA DAS

            S/O LATE HARKUMAR DEB
            RESIDENT OF SIBNAGAR
            BORJHAR
            AIRPORT
            PO AND PS AZARA
            DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 78101

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P P DAS, MR. SURAJIT DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : MR P KALITA (R-1), MRS S GOSWAMI(R-1)




                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                           ORDER

Date : 21-02-2025 Page No.# 2/3

21.02.2025

Heard Mr. P.P. Das, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and also heard Mr. P. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1.

2. This is an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 48 days in preferring the connected Testamentary Appeal against the judgment & order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Probate Title Suit Case No. 4 of 2021 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the applicant that there was a delay of 48 days in preferring the appeal as some time was required to obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment and the stamp and folios etc. from the learned Trial Court below and in the meantime the petitioner was also suffering from ailment of his upper abdomen for which he was not in a position to make contact with the learned counsel and only after obtaining the certified copies etc. he approached the learned counsel when the appeal memo was accordingly prepared. There was no wilful negligence or laches on the part of the petitioner in preferring the connected appeal with 48 days delay.

4. Mr. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 submitted in this regard that delay should be explained properly and each day delay has to be explained to condone the delay in preferring the appeal or petition etc. But, here in the instant case the delay is not well explained as to what prevented the petitioner from preferring the appeal within a period of limitation.

5. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and from para 4 to 6 the delay has been explained in Page No.# 3/3

the petition as to why the petitioner could not prefer the appeal within a period of limitation. Delay which is explained in the para 4 to 6 of the petition is found reasonable and accordingly for the ends of justice, I find that one more chance be given to the present petitioner in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Court below in probate case.

6. In view of this, the present petition is allowed condoning the delay of 48 days in preferring the testamentary appeal against the judgment and order passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Probate Title Suit Case No. 4 of 2021.

7. Registry will do the needful in numbering the connected appeal and list the matter accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant