Allowed¶11

M/S Luit Valley Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, Government of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Jul 2026I.A.(Civil)/948/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 29 days delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; sufficient cause; engaged counsel's ailment; medical documents; liberal view; justice-oriented approach; regular first appeal; Title Suit No. 22 of 2018; judgment and decree dated 23.05.2025; Gauhati High Court; I.A.(Civil)/948/2026; Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.; Luit Valley Engineering Pvt Ltd; PWD Assam; Bodoland Territorial Council; registration of appeal; admission listed 05.08.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 29 days in filing the connected regular first appeal condoned; Registry directed to register the connected regular first appeal and list it for admission on 5th August, 2026. ¶11

M/S Luit Valley Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, Government of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 29 days in filing the connected regular first appeal condoned; Registry directed to register the connected regular first appeal and list it for admission on 5th August, 2026.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 29 days in preferring the connected regular first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2025 in Title Suit No. 22 of 2018 ought to be condoned.

¶2

Court's answer

The delay in filing the connected appeal was caused entirely by reasons connected with the applicants' engaged counsel (who was suffering from ailments); the applicants themselves were not at lapse and may not be made to suffer for the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Considering that the delay was only a short period of 29 days, the Court took a liberal view of the matter and condoned the delay of 29 days in filing the connected appeal.

¶10

Key takeaways

It is a settled proposition that while considering an application for condonation of delay, courts should take a justice-oriented approach and a liberal view of the matter wherever warranted.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.) allowed I.A.(Civil)/948/2026 condoning a 29-day delay in filing a regular first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2025 in Title Suit No. 22 of 2018. The Court found the delay was caused entirely by the ailment of the applicants' engaged counsel, for which the applicants could not be made to suffer, medical documents having been furnished. Although counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 objected (contending some medical documents related to ailment prior to the impugned decree and that sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was not shown), counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 raised no objection. Taking a liberal, justice-oriented view given the short period of delay, the Court condoned the 29-day delay and directed the Registry to register the connected regular first appeal and list it for admission on 5th August, 2026.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010225492025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/948/2026

¶6

M/S LUIT VALLEY ENGINEERING PVT LTD AND ANR (A REGISTERED PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY), LIMITED BY SHARES HAVING ITS REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT 7, A.K. AZAD ROAD, OPPOSITE TO NEPALI MANDIR, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-8, P.O. AND P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM.

¶7

2: PRAKASH SHARMA S/O SRI SHREE PRASAD SHARMA R/O 7 A.K. AZAD ROAD OPPOSITE TO NEPALI MANDIR PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-8 P.O. AND P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM. ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF M/S LUIT VALLEY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR PWD BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR P.O.- KOKRAJHAR DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. BUILDING

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 3 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. KOKRAJHAR ELECTRICAL DIVISION KOKRAJHAR P.O.- KOKRAJHAR KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. KOKRAJHAR BUILDING DIVISION KOKRAJHAR P.O.- KOKRAJHAR KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 6:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOKRAJHAR DISTRICT KOKRAJHAR P.O.- KOKRAJHAR ASSA

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D NANDI, MR. A NANDI,MS P SARMAH

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, SC, BTC

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

15.07.2026

¶18

[1] Heard Mr. D. Nandi, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. A. Atriya, appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 as well as Ms. N. Barman, appearing on behalf of Mr. D. Nath, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶19

[2] This interlocutory application has been filed

¶20

Page No.# 3/5

¶21

by the applicants praying for condoning the delay of 29 days in preferring the connected regular first appeal wherein, the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2025, passed in Title Suit No. 22 of 2018 has been impugned.

¶22

[3] Mr. D. Nandi, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that he was engaged by the applicants to file the instant appeal within the period of limitation, however, as he himself (the counsel) was suffering from ailments, he could not preferred the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶23

[4] In support of his submissions, he has furnished medical documents indicating his ailments therein.

¶24

[5] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the delay in preferring the connected appeal was entirely due to his lapse as he was ill during the said period. And as such, the applicants may not be made to suffer for lapse which was not there and hence, he prays for condoning the delay of 29 days.

¶25

[6] Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Counsel submits that considering the grounds shown by the applicants in the instant interlocutory application as well as the short period of delay of 29 days, he does not have any objection if the delay is condoned.

¶26

[7] On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

respondent Nos. 2,4 and 5 Mr. Atriya has objected to condonation of delay of 29 days on the ground that some of the documents which are annexed along with the instant interlocutory application pertaining to the ailment of the engaged counsel, relates to ailment prior to the date of impugned decree passed in the aforesaid case.

¶29

[8] He further submits that the applicants have failed to show sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 justifying condonation of delay in this case and as such, he prays for dismissal of this interlocutory application.

¶30

[9] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. Though it is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay the courts should take a justice oriented approach and take liberal view of the matter wherever it is warranted.

¶31

[10] In the instant case, it appears that the delay which has been caused in filing the connected appeal is entirely due to the reasons connected with the engaged counsel of the applicants and the applicants were not at lapse for the said delay. Under such circumstances, they may not be made to suffer due to delay in filing of the connected appeal beyond period of limitation. Moreover,

¶32

Page No.# 5/5

¶33

considering that the fact that the delay is only of a short period of 29 days, this court is taking a liberal view of the matter and condoning the delay of 29 days in filing the connected appeal.

¶34

[11] This interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶35

[12] The Registry is directed to register the connected regular first appeal and list the same for admission on 5^th August, 2026.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

M/S Luit Valley Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, Government of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Luit Valley Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, Government of Assam and 5 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

Ranjit Das Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and 3 Ors.

Bhaskar Jyoti Goswami and Anr. Vs Ramchandra Goswami and Anr.

Sri Surajit Dutta Choudhury Vs Sri Victor Palit and Anr.

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Golapi Devi and 5 Others

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nabajyoti Borah and 2 Ors.

M/S Luit Valley Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, Govt. of Assam and 5 Ors.