Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Pappu Basfor on 21 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010183982024
2025:GAU-AS:3108
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2964/2024
GODHI HORIJON
W/O PAPU BASFOR,
D/O HIRALAL HARIJON AMINGAON BAZAR, PO AND PS AMINGAON, DIST
KAMRUP M ASSAM 781031
VERSUS
PAPPU BASFOR
S/O LATE NONJU BASFOR,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SASTRI NAGAR, PS AND DIST GOALPARA, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, MS. VIBHA TIWARI,MR. K.K. SINGH,MS. S D
SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M H TALUKDAR ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 21.03.2025
Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M.H.
Talukdar, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Page No.# 2/3
is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 90 days in preferring
the connected appeal against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2024, in
T.S.(D) No. 85/2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Goalpara.
3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in T.S.(D) No.
85/2022, the applicant has not received notice and she was not aware of the
proceeding instituted by the respondent herein before the Court at Goalpara,
and that the suit proceeded ex-parte on 25.07.2023. Mr. Sarma further submits
that the applicant is a poor lady living hand to mouth and she had to move from
pillar to post for financial help to prefer the connected appeal against the
aforesaid judgment and decree dated 07.03.2024, and in the process, there was
a delay of 90 days in preferring the appeal and therefore, it is contended to
condone the same.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the opposite party has
opposed the application on the ground that the applicant has not mentioned the
date on which she came to know about the impugned judgment and decree
dated 07.03.2024.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have
carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record.
6. It appears that the impugned judgment and decree was passed on
07.03.2024, ex-parte and it is the categorical contention of the applicant that
she had not received summon in the aforementioned proceeding. It also
appears that the applicant is a poor lady living hand to mouth and she could not
manage the expenses for filing the appeal in time.
7. Taking note of the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, and
also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, and further
Page No.# 3/3
adopting a pragmatic approach on the matter, this Court is inclined to condone
the delay of 90 days in preferring the connected appeal.
8. In view of the order in this I.A., the that Registry shall register the
connected appeal and thereafter, list the same before this Court as soon as
practicable.
9. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
