Allowed

MD Nizamul Hoque @ Mizamul Hoque v. MD Bazlur Rahman @ Baznur Rahman

Gauhati HC12 Jul 2018I.A.(Civil)/4092/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 246-day delay in filing a connected first appeal. The court accepted the applicant's explanation of non-intimation regarding hearing dates as good and sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 246 days condoned; cost of Rs. 5,000 awarded to the respondent's counsel.

MD Nizamul Hoque @ Mizamul Hoque Vs MD Bazlur… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010056052017

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 4092/2017 In RFA 130/2017

¶6

1:MD NIZAMUL HOQUE @ MIZAMUL HOQUE S/O LT. ABED ALI, VILL. NO. 1 DHANSIRI KASH, P.O. SHYAM TILA, P.S. DHULA, DIST. DARRANG ASSAM, PIN 784190

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:MD BAZLUR RAHMAN @ BAZNUR RAHMAN S/O LT. ABED ALI, VILL. NO. 1 DHANSIRI KASH, P.O. SHYAM TILA, P.S. DHULA, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN 784190

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.L N CHOUDHURY

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : MR H R A CHOUDHURY,SR.ADV.

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 12-07-2018

¶15

Heard Mr. M. H. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. F. U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶16

By this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 246 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connect first appeal.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner projects that although they have engaged counsel in the trial Court and the written statement was filed but they were not intimated

¶18

Page No.# 2/2

¶19

about the dates of hearing and therefore, the suit was heard ex-parte. Only on receipt of the notice of execution, they became aware of the decree passed in the suit and in the process there was a delay in approaching this Court.

¶20

Perused the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent.

¶21

Also heard the learned counsel for the respondent who has opposed this application.

¶22

This Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant does not benefit by not approaching the Court on time and therefore, the explanation given is quite plausible.

¶23

Therefore, this court is inclined to allow this application by accepting the explanation as good and sufficient cause which had prevented the applicant to file the connected appeal on time. Hence, the delay of 246 days stands condoned. However, a cost of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid by the applicant to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

This application is allowed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-

¶25

The aforesaid cost will be paid within one month from today by handing over the payment to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, for onward payment to the respondent.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

MD Nizamul Hoque @ Mizamul Hoque v. MD Bazlur Rahman @ Baznur Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Nizamul Hoque @ Mizamul Hoque v. MD Bazlur Rahman @ Baznur Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Nitai Mudok Vs Shri Suren Saikia @ Surendra Saikia and 4 Ors.

Bhaskar Roy Choudhury and Anr. Vs Hironmoy Sekhar Das Astopati @ Roy Astopati and 2 ORS11.00

Shri Nitai Mudok Vs Sri Suren Saikia @ Surendra Saikia and 4 Ors.

Smti. Ruby Sarma and 2 Ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smti Priyanka Devi and 4 Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Md. Taibur Rahman and Anr.