Allowed condonation of 101 days delay in filing a revision petition on grounds of tuberculosis treatment and lack of intentional suppression of facts.
Prayer for condonation of delay of 101 days allowed.
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
GAHC010041662017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.) 692/2017
1:MAN MOHAN GUPTA
S/O. LT. MANIK CHAND GUPTA, R/O. H.NO. 4, G.S. COLONY, FATASIL, P.S. BHARALUMUKH, DIST. KAMRUP, GUWAHATI-781009.
VERSUS
1:BINOD AGARWAL and ANR.
S/O. LT. SHIV LAL AGARWAL, R/O. TARUN NAGAR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI781005, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM.
2:STATE BANK OF INDIA REP. BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FANCY BAZAR BRANCH SRCB ROAD BULBUL MARKET GUWAHATI-781001. NOTICE THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.H GUPTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.K K DEY R-2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 23-07-2019
Heard Mr. H Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. KK Dey, learned counsel is appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 though the name of the counsel is shown in the cause list.
By way of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay of 101 days in filing the connected revision petition against the order
Page No.# 2/2
dated 07.03.2017 whereby complaint case filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed by the learned CJM, Kamrup.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of passing the order he was out of station for treatment as he was patient of tuberculosis and he could not filed the revision in time. In that process there was delay of 101 days in preferring the revision. It is stated that delay is not intentional or for his negligence.
The respondent No.1 filed their affidavit-in-opposition submitting that such a prayer has been made by suppression of fact with intention to cause undue harassment to the respondent. In reply to the said affidavit, petitioner has also filed an affidavit along with certain medical documents to submit that the petitioner herein was under medical treatment since 2014 till 2018 and he was even admitted in the hospital on several occasions.
I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the documents annexed.
Having regard to the submission made before this Court and the grounds assigned along with the medical documents it can be inferred that delay in filing the revision is not intentional nor there is suppression of facts. Therefore, prayer for condonation of delay of 101 days is hereby allowed.
Registry is directed to register the revision and list the same before the court after two weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
MAN MOHAN GUPTA
BINOD AGARWAL
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
