Allowed

Sri Banshi Rabidas and 4 Ors. v. Sri Ajit Sarkar and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC18 Sept 2019I.A.(Civil)/2482/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of four days delay in filing a second appeal. The court noted the cause for delay was sufficient and the respondents had no objection.

What did the court decide?

Four days delay in preferring the regular second appeal stands condoned; the regular second appeal is to be registered and listed.

Sri Banshi Rabidas and 4 Ors. Vs Sri Ajit… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010118362019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 2482/2019

¶5

1:SRI BANSHI RABIDAS AND 4 ORS. S/O- LATE NATHURAM RABIDAS @ NATHANI RABIDAS.

¶6

2: SRI HANSHI RABIDAS S/O- LATE NATHURAM RABIDAS @ NATHANI RABIDAS.

¶7

3: SRI DILIP RABIDAS @ BOUWA S/O- LATE NATHURAM RABIDAS @ NATHANI RABIDAS.

¶8

4: SMT. CHANDRA RABIDAS W/O- LATE RAJBALI RABIDAS

¶9

5: SRI GHUTU RABIDAS S/O- LATE SANIRAM RABIDAS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BHETAGAON P.O. AND P.S. BIJNI DIST.- CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 783391

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

1:SRI AJIT SARKAR AND 5 ORS. S/O- LATE ABHAY CHANDRA SARKAR.

¶12

2:SRI ANIL SARKAR S/O- LATE ABHAY CHANDRA SARKAR.

¶13

3:SRI UTTAM RABIDAS

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

S/O- LATE RAJBALI RABIDAS

¶16

4:SRI GAUTOM RABI DAS S/O- LATE RAJBALI RABIDAS

¶17

5:SRI NITAI RABIDAS S/O- LATE RAJBALI RABIDAS

¶18

6:SMTI. PINKI RABIDAS (MINOR) D/O- LATE RAJBALI RABIDAS REP. BY HER MOTHER SMTI. CHANDRA RABIDAS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BHETAGAON P.O. AND P.S. BIJNI DIST.- CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 783391

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioners : MR. A C SARMA

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : MR A D CHOUDHURY

¶21

Linked Case : /RSA Filing No. 7304/19

¶22

1:SRI BANSHI RABIDAS AND 4 ORS

¶23

VERSUS

¶24

1:SRI AJIT SARKAR AND 5 ORS

¶25

Advocate for the Appellants : Advocate for the Respondent :

¶26

BEFORE

¶27

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Date : 18-09-2019

¶30

Heard Mr. G. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶31

Page No.# 3/3

¶32

By this application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioners have prayed for condonation of four days delay in preferring the regular second appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2 submits that he has no objection in allowing the application and condoning the delay.

¶34

It appears that the applicants have shown the cause for the delay, which can be construed as sufficient cause. Therefore, having considered the submission of the learned counsel for both the sides and also that the respondents have no objection in condoning the delay, the application is allowed and the delay of four days stands condoned. Office to register the regular second appeal and list it in appropriate column.

¶35

IA stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Sri Banshi Rabidas and 4 Ors. v. Sri Ajit Sarkar and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Banshi Rabidas and 4 Ors. v. Sri Ajit Sarkar and 5 Ors.

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

Smt. Champa Mahato Vs Sri Deepak Chetry and 3 Ors.

Budha Chandra Singha Vs Dhaneshwar Singha

Roham Ali Vs the State of Assam

Dr Ramesh Kumar Agarwalla Vs Smti Santosh Kejriwal and Anr.

MD Firoz Ahmed and Anr. Vs Miss Yumpi Padu and 13 Ors.

Sri Shyam Sundar Bhattar Vs Sri Jyotirmoy Dey