Allowed

Hatem Ali v. Abdul Mannan and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026I.A.(Civil)/1907/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application, the Gauhati High Court held that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the connected motor accident compensation appeal within the prescribed limitation period of 113 days. Accordingly, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was directed to be registered and listed after a week.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 113 days in filing the connected MAC Appeal was condoned and the application was allowed.

Hatem Ali Vs Abdul Mannan and 2 Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010228942025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1907/2026

¶6

HATEM ALI

¶7

S /O- ASHEK ALI. R/O- SHIMLABARI. P.O.- AMBARI BAZAR. P.S.- BAGUAN. DIST.- GOALPARA (ASSAM). PIN-783120.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

ABDUL MANNAN AND 2 ORS. S/O- LATE AMZAD ALI. R/O- VILL- MARKULA. P.O.- MARKULA. P.S.BAGUAN. DIST.- GOALPARA (ASSAM). PIN-783120.

¶10

2:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. BONGAIGAON. -3- DIST.- BONGAIGAON (ASSAM). PIN- 783385. POLICY NO. 1306043121P1077- 820166

¶11

3:THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶12

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. GOALPARA BRANCH AMLA TOWER PANCHARATNA ROAD BALADMARI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM POLICY NO. 1306043121P1077- 820166. (VEHICLE REGD. NO. AS-18-AC1838

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. T BEGUM

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M HOQUE(R1),

¶15

In MACApp. Case No. 13135/2025 With

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

MACApp. Case No. 13135/2025 (Filing Number) With

¶18

I.A.(Civil) Case No. 13136/2025 (Filing Number)

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

16.09.2026

¶22

[1] Heard Mr. A. Roshid, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. Hoque, the learned counsel for the claimants/opposite parties.

¶23

[2] On perusal of the Office Note dated 28.08.2026, it appears that notice issued to opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 have been duly delivered to them. As such, same is held to be duly served.

¶24

[3] This interlocutory application has been filed by Hatem Ali, who is the owner of the offending vehicle praying for condoning the delay of 113 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal.

¶25

[4] Mr. A. Roshid, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has stated reasons for delay in paragraph No. 8 of the instant interlocutory application.

¶26

[5] The learned counsel for the claimants/ opposite parties has not objected to the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶27

[6] I have considered the submissions made by

¶28

Page No.# 3/3

¶29

the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. After considering the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application, this court is of considered opinion that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶30

[7] As such, the delay of 113 days in filing the connected MACAppeal is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed.

¶31

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

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Hatem Ali v. Abdul Mannan and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hatem Ali v. Abdul Mannan and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases