N. F. Railway and Anr. Vs Shilpi Saha (Haru Saha)

Heard Ms. P.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. R. Kour, learned counsel for the

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

opposite party.

¶20

2. This application, under Chapter V-A Rule 2(2) of the Gauhati High Court Rules, is preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 23 days in preferring the connected civil revision petition against the judgment and order dated 09.02.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (FTC), Tinsukia, in Misc. Appeal No. 20/2023.

¶21

3. Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to the time required in applying for the certified copies and in receipt of the same and also due to internal communication with the Department and receipt of legal opinion from the Central Government, the connected civil revision petition could not be filed in time and the same has been explained in paragraph Nos. 2, 3 & 5 of the application. Ms. Choudhury further submits that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and it is a bona-fide one and therefore, it is contended to allow this application.

¶22

4. Per-contra, Ms. Kour, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that though no objection has been filed, yet the application may be disposed of on merit.

¶23

5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the application as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the statements and averments made in paragraph Nos. 2, 3 & 5 of the application.

¶24

6. It appears that due to the time required in obtaining the certified copies and in receipt of the same and also due to internal communication with the Department and the time required in receipt of legal opinion from the Central Government, the connected CRP could not be filed in time. On such count, the explanation, so put forwarded by the applicants, in paragraph Nos. 2, 3 & 5 of the

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

application appears to be justified and also reasonable.

¶27

7. Thus, in considered view of this Court, the delay in preferring the connected civil revision petition stands sufficiently explained and therefore, this court is inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the delay of 23 days in preferring the connected civil revision petition, stands condoned.

¶28

8. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of.

¶29

9. Now, the registry shall register the civil revision petition and list the same before the Court as soon as practicable.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

N. F. Railway and Anr. v. Shilpi Saha (Haru Saha)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. F. Railway and Anr. v. Shilpi Saha (Haru Saha)

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

Tulan Chandra Bora and 2 Ors. Vs Ramen Singh Raja

Rajesh Medhi and Anr. Vs Dr Shyam Bhadra Medhi and 4 Ors.

Khanjana Barman Vs Govin Buskey and 2 Ors.

Smti Usha Maheswari Vs Prem Sagar Jha

Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs Susitra Goswami and 5 Ors.

Nabir Hussain and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.