The Court allowed an application for condonation of delay of 158 days in preferring an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It found the appellant's reasons for delay sufficient as they arose beyond his control.
The delay of 158 days in preferring the connected appeal is condoned and the I.A. stands disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010023492016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 1163/2016
1:MD. MISKIN ALI
S/O SAHED ALI, R/O VILL. KASOMMARI, P.O.KOPATI, P.S. DALGAON, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY SECY., DEFENCE , NEW DELHI, SASTRI BHAVAN, C/O THE COMMANDING OFFICER, 315 FIELD REGIMENT KARGIL ARMY CAMP, UDALGURI, PIN 784509
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 04-06-2019
Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned CGC for the sole respondent.
By this application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant has prayed for condoning the delay of 158 days in preferring the connected MACAppeal against the judgment dismissing the claim of the appellant under the provisions of the MV Act.
Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant is a daily wage earner and due to fracture on his right leg he could not take steps against the impugned judgment and due to his poverty he could not come to Guwahati to prefer the connected appeal in time.
Page No.# 2/2
Mr. B. Sarma, learned CGC, submits that the grounds shown for the delay in preferring the connected appeal are not sufficient for want of supporting evidence. Upon hearing learned counsel for both side and on perusal of the grounds stated in the application, this court finds that there is sufficient cause beyond the control of the appellant, in not preferring the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, and as such, there was delay of 158 days as on date. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
The I.A. stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 158 days in preferring the connected appeal was condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the reasons of fracture and poverty constituted sufficient cause beyond the control of the appellant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MD. MISKIN ALI
UNION OF INDIA
AJIT BORTHAKUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
