Allowed

The Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 2 Ors. v. Sahida Begum Laskar and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 May 2026I.A.(Civil)/1189/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interlocutory application by APDCL seeking condonation of a 25-day delay in filing a Regular First Appeal against a money suit decree. With no objection from respondents, the court found sufficient cause shown and condoned the delay, directing registration and listing of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 25 days in filing the connected Regular First Appeal condoned; application allowed; appeal to be registered and listed for admission.

The Assam Power Distribution Company Limited… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010045002024

2026:GAU-AS:6128

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1189/2024

¶6

THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS. (IN SHORT APDCL), A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1957, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI- 01, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, APDCL.

¶7

2: THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER APDCL HAILAKANDI ELECTRICAL DIVISION DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

¶8

3: THE DEPUTY MANAGER HAILAKANDI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

SAHIDA BEGUM LASKAR AND 7 ORS. W/O LATE FAJAR UDDIN LASKAR, VILL.- SAHABAD PART II, P.S.- KATLICHERRA, PIN- 788163, DIST.HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.

¶11

2:RHAYIA AKTAR LASKAR D/O LATE FAJAR UDDIN LASKAR

¶12

VILL.- SAHABAD PART II P.S.- KATLICHERRA PIN- 788163 DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. (BEING MINOR REP. BY RESPONDENT NO. 1).

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

3:SAHA ALOM LASKAR D/O LATE FAJAR UDDIN LASKAR VILL.- SAHABAD PART II P.S.- KATLICHERRA PIN- 788163 DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. (BEING MINOR REP. BY RESPONDENT NO. 1). 4:SABIR ALOM LASKAR D/O LATE FAJAR UDDIN LASKAR VILL.- SAHABAD PART II P.S.- KATLICHERRA PIN- 788163 DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. (BEING MINOR REP. BY RESPONDENT NO. 1). 5:SAHARUL ALOM LASKAR D/O LATE FAJAR UDDIN LASKAR VILL.- SAHABAD PART II P.S.- KATLICHERRA PIN- 788163 DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. (BEING MINOR REP. BY RESPONDENT NO. 1). 6:THE SENIOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR GOVT. OF ASSAM MEHERPUR P.S.- MEHERPUR SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM. 7:THE HEADMASTER-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY SHAHABAD M.E. MADRASSA P.O.- SHAHABAD P.S.- KATLICHERA DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

¶15

Page No.# 3/5

¶16

8:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI (EDUCATION BRANCH) HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P N GOSWAMI, MR. R BORA,MR. K P PATHAK Advocate for the Respondent : MR. T ROY (R-1,2,5), MRS. B SARKAR(R-1,2,5)

¶18

¶19

RFA Case No. 2588/2024 With RFA Case No. 2588/2024 (Filing Number) With I.A.(Civil) Case No. 2589/2024 (Filing Number)

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

04.05.2026

¶23

[1] Heard Mr. R. Bora, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Ms. B. Sarkar, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶24

[2] It appears that though by order dated 27.05.2024, the name of the Government Advocate, Assam was directed to be reflected in the cause-list, as counsel representing respondent Nos. 6 and 8, however, the same has not yet been done by the Registry.

¶25

[3] The Registry is directed to comply with the order dated 27.05.2024.

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

[4] Mr. R. Bora, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, has, however submitted that he has informed Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Government Advocate, who is on his legs in a different court and has intimated him that he does not have any objection if the present interlocutory application is allowed and delay of 25 days is condoned.

¶28

[5] This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the connected Regular First Appeal, wherein, the present applicants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2023, passed by the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi in Money Suit No. 10/2019, whereby, the present applicants were directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 20,77,500/- to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 within a period of 3(three) months from the date of decree, along with an interest @ 6% per annum.

¶29

[6] The learned counsel appearing for the applicants have submitted that the reasons for approaching the court beyond 25 days of the prescribed period of limitation has been stated in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the instant interlocutory application and same may be considered as sufficient grounds under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶30

Page No.# 5/5

¶31

[7] Ms. B. Sarkar, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submits that considering the grounds shown by the applicants in the instant interlocutory application, she does not have any objection if the delay of 25 days is condoned.

¶32

[8] After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and after going through the reasons stated in the paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the instant interlocutory application, this court is of the considered opinion that the applicants is able to show that they were prevented by sufficient cause in approaching this court by filing the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶33

[9] Accordingly, the delay of 25 days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is accordingly, allowed.

¶34

[10] The Registry is directed to register the connected Regular First Appeal and list the same for admission after a week, on a date to be fixed by it.

¶35

[11] This interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

The Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 2 Ors. v. Sahida Begum Laskar and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 2 Ors. v. Sahida Begum Laskar and 7 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

Sh. Roneihsanga Vs State of Mizoram and Anr.

Sh. John Lalhruaizela Vs State of Mizoram and Anr.

Sh. Bawihzika and 3 Ors. Vs Union of India r/b the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and 3 Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Praneswar Rabha

Amin Ali Vs Abdul Jalil Laskar

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Amir Ali