Disposed¶26

Ayub Ali Laskar v. the Joint Director Health Services, Hailakandi and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Feb 2026I.A.(Civil)/4186/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; 482 days delay; sufficient cause; brief returned by earlier counsel on 06.11.2025; Regular First Appeal registration; TS Case No.66/2023; Civil Judge Senior Division Hailakandi; suit dismissed barred by limitation; order dated 04.04.2024; Ayub Ali Laskar v Joint Director Health Services Hailakandi; Gauhati High Court; I.A.(Civil)/4186/2025; Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita; 16.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 482 days in preferring the connected regular appeal condoned; Registry directed to register the Regular First Appeal and list the same for admission after a week on a date to be fixed by it; Interlocutory Application disposed of. ¶26

Ayub Ali Laskar Vs the Joint Director Health Services, Hailakandi and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010261512025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/4186/2025

¶6

AYUB ALI LASKAR

¶7

SON OF LATE ABDUL WAHAB LASKAR, VILL- MATIJURI, P.S. AND DISTHAILAKANDI.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE JOINT DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES, HAILAKANDI AND 3 ORS. P.O., P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI, PIN-788151, ASSAM

¶10

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36

¶11

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI P.O. P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI-78815

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR, MR. A K HANNAN

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, GA, ASSAM

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 16.02.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 and Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶20

2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 482 days in preferring the connected appeal, wherein, the appellant has impugned the order dated 04.04.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hailakandi in TS Case No.66/2023, whereby, the suit of the appellant was dismissed on the ground of barred by limitation.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not responsible for the delay, which has occurred in this case. He submits that after the dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant on 04.04.2024, the brief of the case was returned by his earlier engaged counsel only on 06.11.2025. As such, he could not prefer the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶22

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No.4 as well as learned counsel for the other respondent have opposed the prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that the applicant has not been able to properly explain the delay caused in filing the connected regular appeal.

¶23

5. It appears that the applicant has attributed the cause of delay to his earlier engaged counsel, who had returned the brief of the case to him belatedly and in support of his submission, he has also produced the original envelop, in which the brief was returned, which shows that the same was returned to him on 06.11.2025.

¶24

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also gone through the materials available on record.

¶25

7. The cause due to which the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the connected regular appeal belatedly, as stated in paragraph 13 of the instant application, appears to be sufficient cause, which had prevented the applicant in approaching the Court for filing the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶26

8. Accordingly, the delay of 482 days in preferring the connected regular appeal is condoned.

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

9. The Registry is directed to register the Regular First Appeal and list the same for admission after a week on a date to be fixed by it.

¶29

10 . With the above observation and direction, the Interlocutory Application is disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Ayub Ali Laskar v. the Joint Director Health Services, Hailakandi and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayub Ali Laskar v. the Joint Director Health Services, Hailakandi and 3 Ors.

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

Sh. Fc. Hmingthanmawia and 19 Ors. Vs The State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 18 Ors.

Lalnunzawma Vs The State of Mizoram and Anr.

Sh F. Laltlankima Vs The State of Mizoram and Another

Nirmal Dutta Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Rongsenkangla and 77 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Babul Ch. Dutta Vs the State of Assam and Anr.