Disposed¶35

Ajit Saikia v. Smti. Anjumoni Saikia

Gauhati HC8 Sept 2025I.A.(Civil)/483/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; S. 5 Indian Limitation Act, 1963; 64 days delay; Regular First Appeal; RFA No. 18/2018; Title Suit No. 61/2015; Civil Judge, Jorhat; judgment and order dated 18.07.2017; preliminary decree and final decree; menorrhagia anaemia; Ajit Saikia v. Anjumoni Saikia / Premlata Saikia; Gauhati High Court; Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund; order dated 09.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 64 days in preferring the Regular First Appeal condoned; Registry directed to list the connected RFA No. 18/2018 on 19.09.2025; applicant to furnish copies of the appeal memo to the respondent. ¶35

Ajit Saikia Vs Smti. Anjumoni Saikia — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 64 days in preferring the Regular First Appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2017 in Title Suit No. 61/2015 should be condoned. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Considering all aspects, the delay of 64 days is condoned and I.A. No. 483/2018 is disposed of.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Sufficient grounds have been shown for the delay and no malafide is discernable on the part of the applicant; the decision on the preliminary decree is crucial and has a bearing on the final decree.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, order dated 09.09.2025 in I.A.(Civil)/483/2018 (linked RFA 18/2018), Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund. Application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 by Ajit Saikia (applicant/appellant) praying condonation of a 64-day delay in preferring a Regular First Appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2017 of the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Suit No. 61/2015. Delay attributed to the applicant attending his daughter suffering from menorrhagia with severe anaemia, obtaining certified copies, and his engaged counsel's absence to attend his hospitalised mother (05.12.2017 to 08.12.2017), followed by preparation time and winter vacations (24.12.2017 to 26.12.2017). The opposite party countered that the reasons were vague and false, mala fide, and that a final decree having already been passed in T.S. No. 61/2015 the RFA was infructuous. The court, noting the decision on the preliminary decree bears on the final decree, found sufficient grounds shown and no malafide, condoned the 64-day delay and disposed of I.A. No. 483/2018, directing listing of the connected RFA No. 18/2018 on 19.09.2025 and furnishing of appeal-memo copies to the respondent. Respondent No. 1 had earlier been struck off following her demise vide order dated 15.05.2024.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010032102018

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/483/2018

¶6

AJIT SAIKIA

¶7

S/O LATE PETUA SAIKIA, R/O PULIBOR, GONDHIA GAON, NEAR A.T. ROAD, CHARAIBAHI MOUZA, P.O. RRL, P.S. PULIBOR, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SMTI. ANJUMONI SAIKIA D/O LATE PETUA SAIKIA R/O TARAJAN GAYON GAON, SARUCHARAI MOUZA, P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT, PIN 785001, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B GOSWAMI, MR. A SATTAR,MR. P P BORTHAKUR,MR. K ROY

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR H BEZBARUA, MR. S J SARMAH

¶12

Linked Case : RFA/18/2018

¶13

AJIT SAIKIA S/O LATE PETUA SAIKIA R/O PULIBOR GONDHIA GAON NEAR A.T. ROAD CHARAIBAHI MOUZA P.O. RRL

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

P.S. PULIBOR DIST. JORHAT ASSAM.

¶16

VERSUS SMTI. PREMLATA SAIKIA R/O TARAJAN GAYON GAON SARUCHARAI MOUZA P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT PIN 785001 DIST. JORHAT ASSAM.

¶17

2:SMTI ANJUMONI SAIKIA R/O TARAJAN GAYON GAON SARUCHARAI MOUZA P.O. AND JORHAT PIN 785001 DIST. JORHAT ASSAM. -----------Advocate for : MR. B GOSWAMI Advocate for : appearing for SMTI. PREMLATA SAIKIA

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶20

ORDER

¶21

09.09.2025

¶22

Learned counsel Mr. P. P. Borthakur is present for the applicant/appellant and learned counsel Mr. A. K. Gupta is present for the respondent/opposite

¶23

party No. 2.

¶24

The respondent No. 1 has passed away and her name has been struck off vide order dated 15.05.2024.

¶25

This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 with prayer for condonation of delay of 64 days in preferring the Regular First Appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2017, passed

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Suit No. 61/2015.

¶28

It is submitted that the applicant’s daughter, Smt. Priyanki Saikia was suffering from menorrhagia with severe anaemia. The applicant had to attend to his daughter. Thereafter, the applicant managed to obtain the certified copies of this case after the judgment was passed on 18.07.2017, and he came to Guwahati on 03.12.2017 to meet the engaged counsel and he handed over all the relevant documents. The advocate called him on 04.12.2017, after verification of the documents but suddenly, the engaged counsel’s mother took ill and the engaged counsel had to leave for his native place at Jorhat to attend to his mother, who was hospitalized from 05.12.2017 to 08.12.2017. After recuperation, the learned engaged counsel retuned to Guwahati on 19.12.2017 and he took 5 days time to prepare this Regular First Appeal, but owing to the Winter Vacations from 24.12.2017 to 26.12.2017, there was a delay of 64 days in preferring the appeal. Annexure-A series are the documents relating to the ailment of Priyanki Saikia whereas, Annexure-B series are the documents to substantiate the appellant’s submission.

¶29

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 filed a counter-affidavit which has been assailed by the learned counsel for the applicant. An affidavit was filed on 07.03.2025 and it was filed on behalf of both the opposite parties i.e., OP No. 1 and OP No. 2, despite the fact that the OP No. 2 has passed away in the meanwhile. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that it was a clerical error.

¶30

The opposite party has refuted the reasons of the delay justified by the applicants stating that the reasons are vague and false, only to fill the lacunae and to prepare excuses for condonation of delay. Malafide is discernable on the part of the applicants. Sufficient grounds have not been shown and the appeal

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

ought to be rejected. Moreover, final decree has already been passed in connection with T.S. No. 61/2015 and this Regular First Appeal is thus infructuous.

¶33

I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. I have scrutinized the documents substantiating the application.

¶34

I have also considered the submission that the decision on the preliminary decree is crucial and has a bearing on the final decree. It appears that sufficient grounds have been shown. No malafide is discernable on the part of the applicant.

¶35

Considering all aspects, delay of 64 days is hereby condoned. In terms of the above observation, this I.A. No. 483/2018 is disposed of.

¶36

Registry to list the connected RFA No. 18/2018 on 19.09.2025.

¶37

Applicant to furnish copies of the appeal memo to the respondent.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Ajit Saikia v. Smti. Anjumoni Saikia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Saikia v. Smti. Anjumoni Saikia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debasish Dey and 2 Ors. Vs Kajal Kanti Dey and 2 Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Choudhury Vs Pappu Sah and 5 Ors.

Kushal Kumar Das Vs Dulal Baruah and Anr.

Legal Representative of Smti Premi Demta and Anr. Vs Legal Representative of Late Ramji Shah

Legal Representative of Smti Premi Demta and Anr. Vs Legal Representative of Late Ramji Shah

Mahidul Islam Vs the State of Assam