High Court of Assam · 2026

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SURAJIT DAS, MR. P P DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B J MUKHERJEE (R-1 TO 5), MS R SAHA (R-1 TO 5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Date : 16.02.2026 ORDER

Heard Mr. R. Mali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though on the last date, he took time for filing written objection, however, he would instead make oral submission objecting to the prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay of 122 days in filing the connected Test Appeal.

This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the applicant praying for condonation of delay of 122 days in preferring the connected Testamentary Appeal. In the said appeal, the present petitioner as appellant has impugned the judgment dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Chirang, whereby, the Title Suit (Probat) No.1/2022 filed by the present petitioner was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had failed to approach the Court by filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as he was suffering from ailments (Spondylosis) for which, he was under medical treatment from 01.11.2024 to 10.03.2024. He submits that in support of the said contention, the medical certificate to that effect has also been annexed by the Page No.# 3/3 applicant as Annexure-1. He submits that the delay causing was not intentional and no malafide intention is there with the petitioner in causing the delay, as it was the petitioner, who was the plaintiff and whose suit was dismissed by the trial Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that though the medical documents in respect the ailments, with which the petitioner was suffering, has been submitted by the petitioner, however, he has not explained as to why within the prescribed limitation period of 90 days, the applicant/petitioner failed to approach the Court.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record including the medical documents and the application in support of the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

While considering the application for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a Court has to take a justice oriented approach. If the reasons shown by the applicant/petitioner, who approached the Court belatedly, appears to be sufficient cause which prevented the applicant in approaching the Court within the prescribed period of limitation, such delay may be condoned.

In the instant case, it appears that the applicant/petitioner has explained the reasons for which he had to approach the Court belatedly. The said reason, in the considered opinion of this Court, may be recorded as sufficient cause, which prevented him from approaching the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 122 days in preferring the connected Testamentary Appeal is hereby condoned.

Registry is directed to register the connected Testamentary Appeal and list the same for admission after a week on a date to be fixed by the Registry.