Allowed¶33

Tulan Chandra Bora and 2 Ors. v. Ramen Singh Raja

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2026I.A.(Civil)/3491/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; 208 days delay; civil revision petition against dismissal of execution petition; Title Execution Case No. 23/2014; Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Nagaon; executing court; legal aid counsel returned brief 27.06.2024; counsel re-engaged 16.07.2024; explanation sufficient and reasonable; I.A.(Civil)/3491/2024; Gauhati High Court; Justice Robin Phukan.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 208 days in preferring the connected civil revision petition condoned; the I.A. stands disposed of; registry directed to register the civil revision petition and list it before the Court as soon as practicable. ¶33

Tulan Chandra Bora and 2 Ors. Vs Ramen Singh Raja — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010222432024

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3491/2024

¶6

TULAN CHANDRA BORA AND 2 ORS

¶7

S/O LATE JAGOT CHANDRA BORA, R/O CHAMUAGAON, P.S.-DHING, MOUZA BHATADRABA, DIST-NAGAON, PIN-782122, ASSAM

¶8

2: HEMANTA BORA S/O LATE JAGOT CHANDRA BORA R/O CHAMUAGAON P.S.-DHING MOUZA BHATADRABA DIST-NAGAON PIN-782122 ASSAM 3: DIBESWAR BORA S/O LATE JAGOT CHANDRA BORA R/O CHAMUAGAON P.S.-DHING MOUZA BHATADRABA DIST- NAGAON PIN-782122 ASSA

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

RAMEN SINGH RAJA

¶11

S/O SRI DINA SINGH RAJA, R/O CHAMUAGAON, P.S.-DHING, MOUZA BHATADRABA, DIST-NAGAON, PIN-782122, ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R BOROOAH,

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R K BHUYAN, MR P DEKA,MR. B BORAH

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶16

ORDER

¶17

05.03.2026

¶18

Heard Mr. K.R. Borooah, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. B. Borah, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶19

2. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 208 days in preferring the connected civil revision petition against the order dated 13.12.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Nagaon (executing court hereinafter), in Title Execution Case No. 23/2014.

¶20

3. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 13.12.2023, the learned executing court had dismissed the execution petition.

¶21

4. Mr. Borooah, learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the Legal Services Authority had engaged one counsel to pursue the case of the applicants. But, the said counsel had returned the file on 27.06.2024 and then, the Legal Services Authority has engaged him and handed over the brief to him on 16.07.2024 and thereafter, he has prepared the petition and preferred the same on 22.10.2024 and in that process, there was the delay of 208 days.

¶22

4.1. Mr. Borooah further submits that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and that the applicants have a good case to be heard on merit.

¶23

4.2. Mr. Borooah also submits that in paragraph Nos. 2 & 3 of the application, the cause of delay has been explained and therefore, he has contended to allow this application.

¶24

5. Per-contra, Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

opposed the application and submits that the execution case filed by the applicants herein, being Title Execution Case No. 23/2014, had been dismissed by the learned executing court, vide order dated 13.12.2023.

¶27

5.1. Mr. Borah further submits that the present application is filed by three applicants, but only one applicant, namely Tulan Chandra Bora had applied for Legal Aid Counsel and there is no explanation as to why the other two applicants remained silent for 208 days. Mr. Borah also submits that the said delay has not properly been explained and under such circumstances he has contended to dismiss this application.

¶28

6. In reply, Mr. Borooah, learned counsel for the applicants submits that even if the prayer of the applicant Nos. 2 & 3 is dismissed, then also the applicant No. 1 can maintain the application and also the CRP and if the name of the applicant Nos. 2 & 3 are struck off from this application, he has no objection.

¶29

7. 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 of the application.

¶30

8. It appears that after dismissal of the execution petition, the applicant No. 1 had applied for the certified copy and the same was handed over to him on 03.01.2024 and on receipt of the certified copy, the applicant No. 1 had approached the High Court Legal Services Authority for availing the Legal Aid Service and thereafter, one counsel was engaged by the Authority, but the said Legal Aid Counsel had returned the brief to the Legal Services Authority and then, the present counsel for the applicants was engaged by the Legal Services Authority on 16.07.2024. On such count, the explanation so put forwarded by the applicants in paragraph Nos. 2 & 3 of the application seems to be sufficient and also

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

reasonable.

¶33

9. 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 208 days in preferring the connected civil revision petition, stands condoned.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Tulan Chandra Bora and 2 Ors. v. Ramen Singh Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulan Chandra Bora and 2 Ors. v. Ramen Singh Raja

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

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

Khanjana Barman Vs Govin Buskey and 2 Ors.

Smt. Anita Deuri and Anr. Vs Hiranya Bharali and 2 Ors.

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

Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs Susitra Goswami and 5 Ors.

Bajaj General Insurance Company Limited Vs Hunufa Khatun and 3 Ors.