Allowed

Bristina Shira v. the General Manager and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Aug 2023I.A.(Civil)/1978/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim application sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to file a connected lease appeal. The court noted lack of objection from respondents and fortified it by reference to this court's precedent, thereby condoning the delay and directing registration of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 347 days condoned; connected appeal to be registered and listed for admission.

Bristina Shira Vs the General Manager and 2… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010052602023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1978/2023

¶5

BRISTINA SHIRA W/O MEKSTON SHIRA, VILL.- BANDARSHI PART III, P.O.- BANDARSHI, P.S.- DUDHNOI, DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE GENERAL MANAGER AND 2 ORS. NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI- 11, ASSAM. 2:DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 11 ASSAM. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR GOALPARA DIST. AND P.O.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

Page No.# 2/2

ORDER

02.08.2023

Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

This I.A. has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with a prayer to condone the delay of 347 days in filing the connected L.A. Appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Goalpara in L.A. (Reference) Case No.25/2013.

¶16

Mr. Das submits that the issue raised in the connected appeal is covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Hareswar Daimary & others Vs.

¶17

State of Assam and others reported in 2015 (2) GLT 750 . Therefore, the delay be condoned and the appeal be decided on merit.

¶18

Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned DSGI appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. M. Barman, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 have submitted in their usual fairness that they would have no objection if the delay is condoned and the appeal is decided on merit.

¶19

In view of the above and having regard to the explanation furnished in the application, the delay of 347 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned.

¶20

Registry to register the connected appeal and list for admission.

¶21

I.A. stands disposed of.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

Comparing Assistant

Bristina Shira v. the General Manager and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bristina Shira v. the General Manager and 2 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

Dalim Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

No. G/5015239P Rifleman/Gd Deepak Raj Tilenga Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Jayanta Kumar Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Samsul Haque Laskar and 54 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Palomina Marak Vs the General Manager and 2 Ors.

Hebinath Sangma Vs the General Manager and 2 Ors.