THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. LABANYA KALITA AND 2 ORS
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
application stands allowed
Provisions considered
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 5
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XXII r. 9
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H K DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P UPADHYAY Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/696/2022 ON THE DEATH OF LATE NABIN CHANDRA BORA HIS LEGAL HEIRS
1.1: SMTI. KAMALESWARI BORAH W/O LATE NABIN CHANDRA BORA R/O VILL-PATARKUCHI MAIDAM GAON GUWAHATI-29 P.S.-BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM
1.2: MISS CHETONA BORAH D/O LATE NABIN CHANDRA BORA R/O VILL-PATARKUCHI MAIDAM GAON GUWAHATI-29 P.S.-BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM
1.3: MISS SATYABATI BORAH Page No.# 3/6 D/O LATE NABIN CHANDRA BORA R/O VILL-PATARKUCHI MAIDAM GAON GUWAHATI-29 P.S.-BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS LABANYA KALITA AND 2 ORS. W/O LATE SUREN KALITA 2:UPEN KALITA S/O LATE SUREN KALITA R/O VILL-PATARKUCHI MAIDAM GAON GUWAHATI-29 P.S.-BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM 3:MADAN MEDHI S/O LATE GURU PRASAD MEDHI R/O VILL-PATARKUCHI MAIDAM GAON GUWAHATI-29 P.S.-BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. H K DEKA Advocate for : MR. P UPADHYAY appearing for LABANYA KALITA AND 2 ORS. Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/695/2022 ON THE DEATH OF LATE NABIN CHANDRA BORA HIS LEGAL HEIRS
1.1: SMTI. KAMALESWARI BORAH W/O LATE NABIN CHANDRA BORA R/O VILL-PATARKUCHI MAIDAM GAON GUWAHATI-29 P.S.-BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM Page No.# 4/6
1.2: MISS CHETONA BORAH D/O LATE NABIN CHANDRA BORA R/O VILL-PATARKUCHI MAIDAM GAON GUWAHATI-29 P.S.-BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM
1.3: MISS SATYABATI BORAH D/O LATE NABIN CHANDRA BORA R/O VILL-PATARKUCHI MAIDAM GAON GUWAHATI-29 P.S.-BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS LABANYA KALITA AND 2 ORS. W/O LATE SUREN KALITA 2:UPEN KALITA S/O LATE SUREN KALITA R/O VILL-PATARKUCHI MAIDAM GAON GUWAHATI-29 P.S.-BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM 3:MADAN MEDHI S/O LATE GURU PRASAD MEDHI R/O VILL-PATARKUCHI MAIDAM GAON GUWAHATI-29 P.S.-BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. H K DEKA Advocate for : MR. P UPADHYAY appearing for LABANYA KALITA AND 2 ORS. Page No.# 5/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Date : 01-06-2022 ORDER Heard Mr. BD Deka, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. A Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The interlocutory application i.e., the I.A(Civil) No.695/2022 has been filed for condonation of delay of 226 days in preferring the application for setting aside abatement of the appeal caused due to the death of the appellant. It has been mentioned in the said application that the sole appellant expired on 04.03.2019 leaving behind the applicants as his legal heirs. The ground assigned in the said application is that the applicants had no knowledge about the filing of the instant appeal and it is only after the death of the sole appellant on 04.03.2019, the applicants on
Operative part
18.01.2022 could come to learn after going through the various files that the instant appeal was pending and accordingly approached the counsel. The counsel accordingly advised that it was necessary for filing an application, for condonation of delay, for setting aside abatement as well as for substitution of the legal representatives of the appellant. It is under such circumstances, the three applications have been filed. I have also heard Mr. A Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who does not oppose the applications. After perusing the grounds shown in the application for Page No.# 6/6 condonation of delay, this Court is satisfied that the said constitutes a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and accordingly, condones the delay of 226 days. The interlocutory application being I.A(Civil) No.696/2022, is an application for setting aside abatement filed under the provisions of Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC. The reasons assigned for filing the instant application has already been dealt herein above and this Court considers it as a ground justified for setting aside abatement. Consequently, the instant application stands allowed. The interlocutory application being I.A(Civil) No.692/2022 has been filed for substitution of the legal heirs of the sole appellant who is survived by the applicants herein. In view of the order thereby condoning the delay and also setting aside the abatement and also taking into account that the right to pursue the appeal survives, this Court permits the substitution thereby substituting the appellant by the applicants herein. The Registry is directed to make the necessary correction in the records. All the three interlocutory applications stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: application stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXII r. 9.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 01 Jun 2022. The bench was DEVASHIS BARUAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.