Allowed¶15

Mamoni Kalita Bezbaruah v. Sangita Haloi Baruah and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Nov 2025I.A.(Civil)/2864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 1224 days delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; sufficient cause; entire continuum of limitation; exclusion of review petition period; Sivamma v Karnataka Housing Board 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899; Brij Indar Singh v Kanshi Ram AIR 1917 PC 156; writ appeal; WP(C) 3023/2020; Review Petition 45/2021; Anganwadi Worker selection; Paruwa Pazipar Anganwadi Centre; Nalbari; summer vacation; Mamoni Kalita Bezbaruah; Sangita Haloi Baruah; Gauhati High Court; I.A.(Civil)/2864/2024; admission listed 04.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1224 days in filing the writ appeal condoned; the connected appeal directed to be listed on 04.02.2026 for admission, if there is no defect in filing. ¶15

Mamoni Kalita Bezbaruah Vs Sangita Haloi Baruah and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 1224 days in filing the writ appeal condoned; the connected appeal directed to be listed on 04.02.2026 for admission, if there is no defect in filing.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1224 days in preferring the writ appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3023/2020 ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶2

Court's answer

In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant must show sufficient cause covering the entire period from when limitation begins to run until actual filing; the length of delay is immaterial where the explanation is possible and bona fide, and what matters is the acceptability of the explanation (approach adopted from Sivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board).

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The time spent in the review proceeding (more than 923 days) cannot be attributed to the applicant, since the review petition was filed within 31 days; the applicant was diligent in pursuing the review and the delay in its disposal is not hers.

¶12

Key takeaways

The explanation for the residual delay (remote place of residence, financial constraints, meeting counsel only on 25.06.2024, the summer vacation from 01.07.2024 to 14.07.2024, and filing on 18.07.2024) is satisfactory and acceptable; the applicant was neither negligent nor indolent nor acted with mala fide intent, and the delay was neither deliberate nor contumacious but occasioned by genuine circumstances.ratio¶14
In the interest of substantial justice and guided by the principles recorded hereinabove, the court deemed it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the writ appeal.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Division Bench) allowed I.A.(Civil)/2864/2024 and condoned a delay of 1224 days in filing a writ appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2021 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3023/2020, which had upheld respondent No. 1's claim of residence within the jurisdiction of Paruwa Pazipar Anganwadi Centre in a dispute over selection as Anganwadi Worker. The Court excluded from the delay the more than 923 days consumed by Review Petition No. 45/2021, which was itself filed within 31 days and dismissed on 26.09.2023. The residual delay was explained by the applicant's remote residence, financial constraints, meeting counsel on 25.06.2024, and the High Court's summer vacation (01.07.2024 to 14.07.2024), the appeal having been filed on 18.07.2024. Adopting the approach in Sivamma (dead) v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899, the Court held that sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must cover the whole continuum of the limitation period, that the length of delay is immaterial if the explanation is bona fide and acceptable, and that a justice-oriented approach applies; finding no negligence, indolence or mala fides, the delay was condoned and the appeal listed for admission on 04.02.2026.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010190802024

2025:GAU-

AS:15343-DB

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

¶6

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2864/2024

¶7

MAMONI KALITA BEZBARUAH

¶8

W/O SRI DIPEN BEZBARUAH, RESIDENT OF PAZIPAR, PO BORBARI, DIST NALBARI, ASSAM 781335

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

SANGITA HALOI BARUAH AND 4 ORS W/O SRI PRASANTA BARUAH,

¶11

RESIDENT OF KHTAPAZIPARA, PO BORBARI, PS NALBARI, DIST NALBARI, ASSAM 781335

¶12

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶13

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶14

3:THE DIRECTOR

¶15

SOCIAL WELFARE DEPUT. ASSM UZAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001

¶16

4:THE PROGRAMME OFFICER

¶17

DIVISIONAL ICDS CELL KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM UZAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 01

¶18

5:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER

¶19

NALBARI CUM CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTE NALBARI DISTRICT ASSAM 781335

¶20

Page No.# 2/6

¶21

6:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PORJECT OFFICER

¶22

NALBARI ICDS NALBARI ASSAM 78133

¶23

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, MS C DAS

¶24

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, BTC,MR. D BHUYAN (R1),MR N SARMA (R1)

¶25

BEFORE

¶26

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

ORDER

12.11.2025

(A.D.Choudhury, J).

We have heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the application. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

¶31

This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of the delay of 1224 days in preferring an appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3023/2020.

¶32

The respondent No. 1 by filing the Writ Petition being WP(C)/3023/2020 assailed the selection and appointment of the applicant as Anganwadi Worker in Paruwa Pazipar Anganwadi Centre.

¶33

The grievance of the respondent No. 1 raised in the writ petition was to the effect that though she secured the highest mark in the selection process, the authorities appointed the applicant by ignoring the better merit of the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was not a

¶34

Page No.# 3/6

¶35

resident within the jurisdiction of the said Anganwadi Centre which is required in terms of the Advertisement.

¶36

Relying on official record, the learned Single Judge concluded that the respondent No. 1 was a resident within the jurisdiction of Paruwa Pazipar Anganwadi Centre. Such judgment was delivered on 11.02.2021. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 within a period of 31 days, preferred a review petition seeking review of the Judgment & Order dated 11.02.2021 passed in WP(C)/3023/2020, which was registered as Review Petition No. 45/2021 and the same was decided by an order dated 26.09.2023.

¶37

Being aggrieved, the connected Writ Appeal was filed on 20.07.2024. In the meantime, there was a delay of 1224 days.

¶38

The learned counsel for the applicant contends that though the review petition was filed diligently, however, that was decided almost after two years and therefore, the delay occurred during the pendency of the review is required to be condoned inasmuch as referring to the decision of Privy Council in Brij Indar Singh –Vs- Kanshi Ram 1917 AIR PC 156 , contends that while condoning the delay, the period taken in pursuing the review petition has to be excluded as a general rule, unless, it is found that review petition was pursued by the petitioner without any bona fide or only as a dilatory tactics.

¶39

As regards the delay occurred from the date of judgment delivered till filing of the connected writ appeal, the learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant belongs to a lowest strata of the economic pyramid and as such it took some time to gather requisite finance to come to Guwahati to approach her counsel for filing the connected writ appeal. Accordingly, the applicant met her counsel on 25.06.2024 and appeal could

¶40

Page No.# 4/6

¶41

be filed on 18.07.2024 as in between there was summer holidays. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicant contends that there are sufficient and justified causes which prevented the applicant to approach this Court within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶42

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 argues that there is no proper explanation of delay in preferring the appeal. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, admittedly, the applicant visited the chamber of the lawyer after 9 months from the date of delivery of the review judgment; except financial difficulty, no other adequate reason has been shown for such delay and therefore, such delay should not be condoned.

¶43

The Apex Court in Sivamma (dead) Vs. Karnataka Housing Board (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899), has clarified the correct approach to be adopted while exercising the discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, inasmuch as it is held that the expression “within such period” under Section 5 must be understood to mean the entire continuum from the date of the limitation begins to run till the actual filing. The applicant must show “sufficient cause” covering the whole of that period. It is equally well settled that while the length of delay may vary, what is essential is the existence of possible and bona fide reason inasmuch as the length of delay may be immaterial and what matters is acceptability of the explanation. Sufficiency of cause is the foundation of exercise of discretionary power under section 5 of the Limitation Act inasmuch as Section 5 is an exception to the rule requiring the litigants to be vigilant and diligent in their endeavour for pursuing legal remedies, and for that reason the negligence or inaction of the litigant during prescribed period of limitation, have no place.

¶44

Page No.# 5/6

¶45

It is also well settled that the law of limitation is founded on public policy, aimed at ensuring certainty and finality of litigation. However, it is not meant to destroy the rights of diligent litigants or to perpetuate injustice in the name of procedural rigidity. Thus, a justice oriented and pragmatic approach must be adopted.

¶46

Coming to the case in hand, record reveals that the writ petition was allowed on 11.02.2021 and the applicant had preferred a review petition, which was dismissed on 26.09.2023. The review petition itself was filed within 31 days and the time spent in the review proceeding is more than 923 days. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was not diligent in preferring the review petition or that the delay in deciding the review is attributed to the applicant.

¶47

It is the case of the applicant that owing to remote location of her place of residence and financial constraints she could not immediately approach her counsel for filing the appeal. The appellant could meet her counsel only on 25.06.2024, whereupon the memo of appeal was prepared. In the meantime, the High Court remained closed for the summer vacation from 01.07.2024 to 14.07.2024 and the appeal was ultimately filed on 18.07.2024.

¶48

In the considered opinion of this court the explanation offered is satisfactory and acceptable and it cannot be said that the explanation given are with candour and supported by materials. It cannot be said in the given facts of the present case that the applicant was either negligent. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant was indolent or acted with malafide intent. In our opinion the delay is neither deliberate nor contumacious but occasioned by genuine circumstances.

¶49

Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice and guided by the

¶50

Page No.# 6/6

¶51

principles laid down as recorded hereinabove, this court deems it appropriate to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned.

¶52

List the connected appeal on 04.02.2026 for admission, if there is no defect in filing.

¶53

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶54

Comparing Assistant

Mamoni Kalita Bezbaruah v. Sangita Haloi Baruah and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamoni Kalita Bezbaruah v. Sangita Haloi Baruah and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monsur Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Jan Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. B

Mohammad Jalal Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Abdus Sabur Ali Mollah and 27 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Hemanta Bijoy Mahanta Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

The State of Assam and 3 Ors. Vs Kaushal Singh and 5 Ors.