Allowed

Narayan Rajbonshi v. Rabin Boro

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026I.A.(Civil)/1823/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interlocutory application, the Gauhati High Court held that a notice via speed post was duly served despite lack of appearance. The court held that sufficient cause existed and condoned an 189-day delay in filing a connected appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 189 days in preferring the connected appeal is condoned, and the First Appeal isdirected to be registered and listed for admission.

Narayan Rajbonshi Vs Rabin Boro — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010098872026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1823/2026

¶6

NARAYAN RAJBONSHI

¶7

SON OF LATE PANIRAM RAJBONSHI, BY PROFESSION - BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF SAOKUCHI, STADIUM ROAD, GUWAHATI - 781034, DISTRICT - KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

RABIN BORO

¶10

SON OF LATE BABUL BORO, RESIDENT OF RUDRESHWAR, MINI STADIUM, GELAPUKHARI, NORTH GUWAHATI, DISTRICT - KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN CODE - 781030.

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A KABRA, MS S GUPTA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶13

¶14

FAO Case No. 5645/2026 (Filing Number)

¶15

-----------Advocate for : MS. NAMRATA BARUAH Advocate for : appearing for SHRI RABIN BORO

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

ORDER

Page No.# 2/3

16.09.2026

[1] Heard Mr. A. Kabra, the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶21

[2] On perusal of the office note dated 09.09.2026, it appears that notice issued to the opposite party by speed post was duly delivered to the addressee. As such, the notice is held to be duly served. However, no one is present on behalf of the opposite party. As such, let this matter be listed.

¶22

[3] This interlocutory application is heard exparte against the opposite party.

¶23

[4] This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condoning the delay of 189 days in preferring the connected appeal, wherein the order dated 18.08.2025, passed by the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No. 46 / 2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 25 of 2024.

¶24

[5] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the reasons for delaying in preferring the connected appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation have been stated in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the interlocutory application. After going through the same, this court is of considered opinion that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, the delay of 189 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned.

¶27

[6] The Registry is directed to register the connected First Appeal Against Order and list the same for admission in the next week on a date to be fixed by it.

¶28

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

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Narayan Rajbonshi v. Rabin Boro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Rajbonshi v. Rabin Boro

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