Allowed¶¶33

Subendu Mohan Talukdar v. Mridul Deka

Condonation of delay – Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963

Gauhati HC5 May 2026I.A.(Civil)/3391/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; I.A.(Civil)/3391/2025; Subendu Mohan Talukdar vs Mridul Deka; Kaushik Goswami, J.; order dated 06.05.2026; condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; 763 days delay; Regular Second Appeal (RSA); sufficient cause; no negligence or willful inaction; Money Execution Case No. 14 of 2023; certified copy of appellate judgment; respondent counsel no objection; Mangaldai; Darrang, Assam; neutral citation 2026:GAU-AS:6182.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 763 days in filing the connected Regular Second Appeal; the interlocutory application allowed and disposed of; Registry directed to register the connected RSA and list it accordingly. ¶¶33

Subendu Mohan Talukdar Vs Mridul Deka — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010218202025

2026:GAU-AS:6182

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3391/2025

¶6

SUBENDU MOHAN TALUKDAR

¶7

S/O- LATE MANORANJAN TALUKDAR, R/O- MANGALDAI TOWN, WARD NO- 5 (NATUN PARA), P.O AND P.SMANGALDAI, MOUZA- RANGAMATI, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN784125,

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

MRIDUL DEKA S/O- LATE JOGEN DEKA , R/O- MANGALDAI TOWN, WARD NO- 1 , P.O AND P.S- MANGALDAI, MOUZA- CHAPAI, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784125,

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B DEORI, MR G BHARADWAJ,MR. A C SARMA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D GOGOI, S BORPUJARI,MS T WAPANGLA,MR. R DEKA

¶12

Linked Case :

¶13

SUBENDU MOHAN TALUKDAR ASSAM

VERSUS

MRIDUL DEKA

Page No.# 2/3

ASSAM

-----------Advocate for : MR BHASKAR DEORI Advocate for : appearing for MRIDUL DEKA

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶21

ORDER

¶22

06.05.2026

¶23

Heard Mr. G Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. D Gogoi, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

¶24

By way of this interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 763 days in filing the connected Regular Second Appeal.

¶25

It appears that the learned Trial Court, by judgment dated 12.04.2022, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent. Thereafter, an appeal having been preferred, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal. The applicant, however, claims that he was unaware of the dismissal of the appeal and, consequently, could not file the Regular Second Appeal within time. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 763 days in filing the connected RSA.

¶26

The grounds for delay, as urged in the application, read as follows:–

¶27

“3. That the First Appellate Court passed the judgment on 10.05.2023. The applicant did not have knowledge of the disposal of the appeal. It was only in the month of March, 2025 that the applicant received notice in Money Execution Case No. 14 of 2023. Thereafter, the applicant entered into several rounds of negotiation with the respondent to settle the dispute with the help of elderly neighbours. However, on 31.08.2025, the respondent declined to enter into any negotiation. Having no other option, the applicant applied for a certified copy of the appellate judgment on 02.09.2025, which was received

¶28

Page No.# 3/3

¶29

on 10.09.2025. Thereafter, the applicant came to Guwahati on 13.09.2025 and handed over the papers to the learned counsel, who prepared and filed the appeal on 19.09.2025. As such, there is a delay of 763 days in filing the appeal. The applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time. There has been no negligence or laches on the part of the applicant in prosecuting the case.”

¶30

Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent, fairly submits that he has no objection if the delay is condoned.

¶31

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the grounds assigned in the application, this Court is satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently and bona fide explained. No deliberate negligence or willful inaction is discernible on the part of the applicant.

¶32

Accordingly, the delay of 763 days in filing the connected Regular Second Appeal stands condoned.

¶33

The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.

¶34

Registry shall register the connected RSA and list the same accordingly.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Subendu Mohan Talukdar v. Mridul Deka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subendu Mohan Talukdar v. Mridul Deka

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

Bichitra Lal Das Vs the State of Assam

Parijat Kakoty Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ms Assam Electric Store Vs the State of Assam

Techcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs T.K. Engineering Consortium Private Limited and 6 Ors.

Sri Sujit Loadh Vs Smti. Aparna Das and 5 Ors.

Ibrahim Ali Laskar and Ors. Vs Abdul Haque Barbhuiya and Ors.