Dismissed¶¶43

MD Nurul Haque and 2 Ors. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Oct 2025I.A.(Civil)/3039/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; 4489 days delay; writ appeal against WP(C) 256/2013 (Civil Court lacks jurisdiction over citizenship); Foreigners' Tribunal (1st) Morigaon F.T.Case 72/2007 declaration dated 27.04.2012; WP(C) 5549/2013 dismissed 06.03.2014; W.A. 211/2015 dismissed 07.09.2015; non-party status not sufficient cause; sufficient cause explained with particularity and due diligence; inordinate and vague explanation; Gauhati High Court; interlocutory application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The law of limitation is substantive in nature; limitation periods cannot be extended on mere equitable consideration, and the applicant must demonstrate reasonable, satisfactory and acceptable cause of delay. ¶¶34

MD Nurul Haque and 2 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 4489 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 256/2013 ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

Though inordinate delay, by itself, is not a bar to the exercise of discretion, where the delay is inordinate and the explanation is vague, general, or illogical, the Court will refuse to condone such delay.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

Condonation cannot be granted merely because the applicant was not a party to the proceeding under challenge; non-party status may be relevant but is not, in itself, sufficient cause, and the applicant must explain the delay with particularity and due diligence.ratio¶¶38
Apart from stating that they became aware of the order dated 11.04.2013 in WP(C) No.256/2013 only on 31.05.2025, the applicants gave no other explanation; the onus of explaining the delay was on them and they failed to discharge it, having waited almost 13 years after the Foreigners' Tribunal order and nearly 10 years after the Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 211/2015 to approach the Civil Court.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Division Bench: Ashutosh Kumar, CJ and Arun Dev Choudhury, J) dismissed I.A.(Civil) No. 3039/2025 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of a delay of 4489 days in filing a writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2013 in WP(C) No. 256/2013, wherein a learned Single Judge had held that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine citizenship. Held: (i) the law of limitation is substantive and cannot be extended on mere equitable consideration; the applicant must show reasonable, satisfactory and acceptable cause; (ii) inordinate delay coupled with a vague, general or illogical explanation warrants refusal of condonation; (iii) non-party status in the challenged proceeding is relevant but not, by itself, sufficient cause, and the delay must be explained with particularity and due diligence; (iv) the applicants' sole explanation - knowledge of the 11.04.2013 order only on 31.05.2025 - was untenable since they had been diligently pursuing related proceedings (dismissal of WP(C) No. 5549/2013 on 06.03.2014 upholding the Foreigners' Tribunal declaration dated 27.04.2012 in F.T.Case No. 72/2007; dismissal of W.A. No. 211/2015 on 07.09.2015) yet approached the Civil Court only after almost 13 years. Condonation refused; application dismissed.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010201272025

2025:GAU-

AS:13676-DB

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

¶6

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3039/2025

¶7

MD NURUL HAQUE AND 2 ORS S/O LT. ABDUL HAMID,

¶8

2: MOMINA KHATUN W/O MD. NURUL HAQUE

¶9

3: SK AHMMAD ALI

¶10

S/O MD. NURUL HAQUE ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE- BAIHATI NELLIE 1 NO. BARPAIK P.O.- NELLIE P.S.- JAGIROAD DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI.

¶13

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

¶14

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR BLOCK-C ASSAM SECRETARIAT

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006

¶17

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM.

¶18

5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)

¶19

MORIGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN782105

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H MAZARBHUIYAN, N BRAHMA,MR R I BHUYAN,MS. L WAJEEDA

¶21

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

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶24

ORDER

¶25

13-10-2025

¶26

(Arun Dev Choudhury,J)

¶27

1. Heard Mr. M. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. R.R.Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K.Medhi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1.

¶28

2. The present Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is filed seeking condonation of the delay of 4489 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 256/2013.

¶29

Page No.# 3/5

¶30

3. The fact in a nutshell is that by the order dated 27.04.2012 passed in F.T.Case

¶31

No. 72/2007, the Foreigners’ Tribunal (1^st ), Morigaon, declared the applicants as foreigners, who entered into Assam from the notified territories post 1971. Such a declaration, though, was challenged by the applicants in WP(C) No. 5549/2013 before this Court; however, learned Single Judge dismissed the same under its order dated 06.03.2014. Subsequently, the applicants preferred writ appeal being W.A. No. 211/2015 and the same was also dismissed by order dated 07.09.2015.

¶32

4. The applicants projects that they are now intending to approach a competent Civil Court seeking a positive declaration of their citizenship; however, they could learn that a learned Single Judge, in WP(C) No. 256/2013, under its order dated 11.04.2013, already laid down that the Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction to determine the citizenship of a person. Being situated thus, the applicant, now, intends to challenge the order dated 11.04.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 256/2013, which is standing as a bar for them to approach the Civil Court seeking a positive declaration of their Indian citizenship.

¶33

5. The only ground pleaded in the application is that the applicants came to know about the order dated 11.04.2013, passed in WP(C) No. 256/2013, only on 31.05.2025. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the above judgment adversely affects the applicants’ rights to approach the Civil Court; therefore, the delay may be condoned.

¶34

6. By now, the law is well settled that the law of limitation is substantive in nature and the limitation periods cannot be extended on mere equitable consideration; the applicant must demonstrate reasonable, satisfactory and acceptable cause of delay.

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

Though an inordinate delay, by itself, is not a bar to exercise its discretion; however, when the delay is inordinate and the explanation is vague, general, or illogical, the Court will refuse to condone such delay.

¶37

7. Yet another facet is that condonation cannot be granted merely for the reason

¶38

that the applicant was not a party in the proceeding under challenge; the fact of not being a party may be relevant, but it is not, in itself, sufficient to demonstrate “sufficient cause”. The requirement remains that the applicant must explain the delay with particularity and so due diligence in seeking relief.

¶39

8. Now coming to the fact of the present case, admittedly, WP(C) No. 5549/2013 was dismissed on 06.03.2014, upholding the declaration of the Foreigners’ Tribunal dated 27.04.2012 and such determination was also upheld by the learned Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 07.09.2015 passed in W.A. No.211/2015. Admittedly, the applicants have decided to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration in the year 2025, i.e., after almost 13 years from the order passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal and nearly 10 years after the final decision rendered by the Division Bench in WA No. 211/2015. Except stating that they were made aware of the order dated 11.04.2013 passed in WP(C) No.256/2013, only on 31.05.2025, no other explanation is given. The applicants bear the onus of explaining the delay, which the applicants have failed to do. Furthermore, the applicants waited 13 years to seek a declaration of their citizenship status in a Civil Court.

¶40

9. The effect of non-party status is to be examined in the context of whether the applicant acted promptly. In our considered opinion, the explanation that the applicants could learn that the law had already been laid down way back on 11.04.2013 in WP(C)

¶41

Page No.# 5/5

¶42

No.256/2013, only on 31.05.2025, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the applicants were duly pursuing their rights in the meantime, which culminated on 07.09.2015 in WA No. 211/2015. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the applicants have failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay.

¶43

10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the delay of 4489 days fails. The instant interlocutory application is accordingly dismissed.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

MD Nurul Haque and 2 Ors. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Nurul Haque and 2 Ors. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mina Hazarika Vs the State of Assam

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Hari Mohan Roy

Bedabrata Bora Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rahul Gandhi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Constable No. 9087100 Robin Chandra Bhuyan Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Karabi Patowary Barman Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.