[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs Nasir Ahmed on 6 January, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
2021:GAU-AS:12791
GAHC010094002025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1643/2025
BASID MOHAMMAD ALIAS BASER ALI
S/O- LATE RAHMAN MIA, R/O- VILL.- KALAHBHANGA, MOUZA- D. C.
BAUSHI, P.O. and P.S. BARPETA ROAD, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-
781315.
VERSUS
NASIR AHMED
S/O- MOHAMMAD BASIR, C/O- NURUL ISLAM,VILL.- GAROIMARI, NEAR
MADRASSA, P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783390.
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER EXECUTED BY SERAJ AHMED, S/O-
ASHFAQUE AHMED, RESIDENT OF 17 DAMZEN LANE, KOLKATA- 700073.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S AHMED, K U AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. J AHMED, MS A HUSSAIN,H G DAISY,R BEGUM
In
RSA Case No. 82/2021(D/O),
In
RSA Case No. 82/2021
With
MC Case No. 22/2025
Page No.# 2/6
2021:GAU-AS:12791
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
06.01.2026
1. Heard Mr. K.U. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the
applicant. Also heard Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
has been filed by the applicant praying for condoning the delay
of 1229 days in filing the restoration petition for re-admission
of regular second appeal No. 82/2021, which was dismissed
for default on 18.11.2021.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that
the applicant had filed the connected regular second appeal
No. 82/2021 against the judgment and decree dated
23.10.2019 and 01.11.2019 respectively passed by the court of
the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta in Title Appeal No. 02/2018
whereby, the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2017 passed
by the trial court in Title Suit No. 58/2014 was reversed.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that
the aforesaid regular second appeal No. 82/2021 was
dismissed for default on 18.11.2021 due to non-appearance of
the engaged counsel and accordingly, the connected Misc.
Case No. 22/2025 was filed by the present applicant for re-
Page No.# 3/6
2021:GAU-AS:12791
admission of the appeal. However, as a delay of 1229 days
occurred in filing the connected Misc. Case, the instant
interlocutory application for condonation of delay has been
filed.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that
the appeal was dismissed for default during the prevalence of
national lock down and due to Covid-19, and therefore, the
applicant was unable to contact with his engaged counsel,
namely, Shahjahan Ahmed, who had left Guwahati and started
living in his native place at Barpeta. He further submits that
the engaged counsel of the applicant never informed the
applicant regarding dismissal of the regular second appeal to
the applicant. It is only on 11.04.2025, when the applicant
received a notice in the Title Execution Case No. 15/2020 from
the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 1),
Barpeta, the applicant came to know about the dismissal of
the regular second appeal No. 82/2021 and immediately, on
coming to know he contacted his engaged counsel and filed a
restoration petition within 19 days.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that though
a total delay of 1229 days had been shown by the Registry,
however, the period from 18.11.2021 to 01.03.2022 would be
exempted from the period of delay in view of the order of the
Apex Court in the case of "Re-Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation" (Miscellaneous Application No. 22/2025).
Page No.# 4/6
2021:GAU-AS:12791
7. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that
as the applicant was unaware about the dismissal of the
connected regular second appeal No. 82/2021 and he was
relying on his engaged counsel, who never informed him
regarding the said dismissal, the delay has been caused due to
reasons which were beyond the control of the present
applicant. Hence, same may be regarded as sufficient cause
which resulted in the delay in filing of the connected Misc.
Case for re-admission of the regular second appeal No.
82/2021.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that though the respondent initially took leave of this
court for filing a written objection against the application for
condonation of the delay, however as the respondent is an
aged person of more than 80 years of age and is staying at
Calcutta, he was not able to come to Guwahati to sign the
objection and as such the written objection could not be filed.
However, the learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that the respondent is opposing the condonation of
delay of 1229 days for which no justified cause has been
shown by the petitioner in his delay condonation petition. He
further submits that even if the same period of delay is
condoned due to the operation of the Apex Court's order in
Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra) still a
remaining period has not been properly explained by the
petitioner in his delay condonation petition. Hence he submits
Page No.# 5/6
2021:GAU-AS:12791
that the said delay may not be condoned. He further submits
that the execution of the impugned decree is at a very
advance stage and only for pendency of this present delay
condonation application, the execution cannot be done.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both sides.
10. It appears that the order for dismissal of the
connected regular second appeal No. 82/2021 for default was
passed during the prevalence of Covid-19 period.
11. It also appears that the judgment of the trial
court was in favour of the present petitioner, however, same
was reversed by the first appellate court.
12. Considering the fact that the delay has been
attributed in the present petition due to lack of knowledge of
dismissal of the connected regular second appeal as same was
not informed to the petitioner by his engaged counsel as well
as considering the other reasons stated in paragraph Nos. 5, 6
and 7 of this condonation of delay application, this court is of
the considered opinion that the reasons shown by the
petitioner may be regarded as sufficient reasons under the
facts and circumstances of this case which prevented him in
approaching the court for filing petition for re-admission of
appeal within prescribed period of limitation. Hence, this court
is inclined to condone the delay caused in filing the connected
Page No.# 6/6
2021:GAU-AS:12791
Miscellaneous Application No. 22/2025.
13. Accordingly, the delay of 1229 days caused in
filing the connected miscellaneous case is hereby condoned,
subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent.
14. Let the connected Misc. Case be listed for hearing
on 29th January, 2026.
15. The payment of cost to the respondent shall be
condition precedent for hearing of the connected Misc. Case
on the next date.
16. List accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
