Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/1994/2026 of ON THE DEATH OF SRI SURESH MALOO, HIS LEGAL HEIRS Vs ON THE DEATH OF NAKUL CHOUDHURY HIS LEGAL HEIR on 17 September 2026
GAHC010045812019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/44/2019 ON THE DEATH OF SHRI SURESH MALOO HIS LEGAL HEIRS GANGA DEVI MALOO AND 3 ORS BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 1.1: GANGA DEVI MALOO M/O LATE SURESH MALOO RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD
GAHC010045812019
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/44/2019
ON THE DEATH OF SHRI SURESH MALOO HIS LEGAL HEIRS GANGA DEVI
MALOO AND 3 ORS
BONGAIGAON, ASSAM
1.1: GANGA DEVI MALOO
M/O LATE SURESH MALOO
RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD
WARD NO. 4
BONGAIGAON
DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
1.2: SHASHI MALOO
W/O LATE SURESH MALOO
RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD
WARD NO. 4
BONGAIGAON
DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
1.3: SHRUTI SIROHIYA
D/O LATE SURESH MALOO
RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD
WARD NO. 4
BONGAIGAON
DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
1.4: SURABHI KABRA
D/O LATE SURESH MALOO
RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD
WARD NO. 4
BONGAIGAON
DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON
ASSA
VERSUS
NAKUL CHOUDHURY AND 4 ORS.
S/O- LATE BALORAM CHOUDHURY, R/O- BONGAIGAON DAILY BAZAAR
(BORO BAZAAR), BONGAIGAON MAIN ROAD, P.O,P.S AND DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM
2:MUKUL CHOUDHURY
S/O- LATE BALORAM CHOUDHURY
R/O- BONGAIGAON DAILY BAZAAR (BORO BAZAAR)
BONGAIGAON MAIN ROAD
P.O
P.S AND DIST- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
3:MALAYA CHOUDHURY
D/O- LATE BALORAM CHOUDHURY
R/O- BONGAIGAON DAILY BAZAAR (BORO BAZAAR)
BONGAIGAON MAIN ROAD
P.O
P.S AND DIST- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
4:SABITA CHOUDHURY
D/O- LATE BALORAM CHOUDHURY
R/O- BONGAIGAON DAILY BAZAAR (BORO BAZAAR)
BONGAIGAON MAIN ROAD
P.O
P.S AND DIST- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
5:SATHI CHOUDHURY
W/O- LATE NANI GOPAL CHOUDHURY
R/O- BONGAIGAON DAILY BAZAAR (BORO BAZAAR)
BONGAIGAON MAIN ROAD
P.O
P.S AND DIST- BONGAIGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D MOZUMDER, MR. S BISWAS,MS. J KAKOTI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR S S SHARMA, MRS L SHARMA,MR. B J MUKHERJEE,MR H
BURAGOHAIN,FOR CAVEATOR
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1994/2026
ON THE DEATH OF SRI SURESH MALOO
HIS LEGAL HEIRS
R/0 MAIN ROAD
WARD NO.4
BONGAIGAON
DISTRICTBONGAIGAON
ASSAM
1.1: SMT GANGA DEVI MALOO
MOTHER OF LATE SURESH MALOO
1.2: SMT SASHI MALO
WIFE OF LATE SURESH MALOO
1.3: SMT SHRUTI SIROHIYA
DAUGHTER OF MALOO
1.4: SMT SURABHI KABRA
DAUGHTER OF LATE SURESH MALOO
ALL ARE R/0 MAIN ROAD
WARD NO.4
BONGAIGAON
DISTRICTBONGAIGAON
ASSAM
VERSUS
ON THE DEATH OF NAKUL CHOUDHURY HIS LEGAL HEIR
RESIDENTS OF BONGAIGAON DAILY BAZAR BORO BAZAR
BONGAIGAON
MAIN ROAD
P.O.
ASSAM.
1.1:SRI NILADRI CHOUDHURY
D/O LATE NAKUL CHOUDHURY.
1.2:SMT MADHUMITA DUTTA
D/O LATE NAKUL CHOUDHURY.
1.3:SMT MAUSUMI DUTTA
D/O LATE NAKUL CHOUDHURY.
Page No.# 4/6
2:SRI MUKUL CHOUDHURY
S/OLATE BALORAM CHOUDHURY
3:SMT MALAYA CHOUDHURY
DAUGHTERS OF - LATE BALORAM CHOUDHURY
4:SMT SABITA CHOUDHURY
DAUGHTERS OF - LATE BALORAM CHOUDHURY
5:ON THE DEATH OF SATHI CHOUDHURY HER LEGAL HEIR
RESIDENTS OF BONGAIGAON DAILY BAZAR BORO BAZAR
BONGAIGAON
MAIN ROAD
P.O.
ASSAM.
5.1:SRI NILAY CHOUDHURY
S/O- LATE SATHI CHOUDHURY.
5.2:SRI NAYAN CHOUDHURY
S/O- LATE SATHI CHOUDHURY.
5.3:SMT SAMPA SARMA
D/O- LATE SATHI CHOUDHURY.
5.4:SMT RUPA DEY
D/O- LATE SATHI CHOUDHURY
5.5:SMT TUPAI ROY ALIAS SRABANI ROY
D/O- LATE SATHI CHOUDHURY
5.6:SMT LUCKY PAUL
D/O- LATE SATHI CHOUDHURY ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BONGAIGAON
DAILY BAZAR BORO BAZAR
BONGAIGAON
MAIN ROAD
P.O.
P.S. AND DISTRICT - BONGAIGAON
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. D MOZUMDER
Advocate for : MR. B J MUKHERJEE appearing for ON THE DEATH OF NAKUL
CHOUDHURY HIS LEGAL HEIR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
18/09/2026 The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been preferred by the applicants praying for condonation of delay of 343 days in filing the application for setting aside the abatement upon the death of Shri. Suresh Maloo during the pendency of the connected CRP/44/2019.
2. Heard learned counsel, Ms. S. Nath, for the applicants. Also heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants had preferred the Revision Petition being CRP NO. 44/2019 before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2018 passed in T.A No. 14/2016 by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, Assam, which is pending disposal. It is further stated that during the pendency of the revision petition, respondent No. 1, Sri. Nakul Choudhury had expired on 09.01.2025 and respondent No. 5, Smt. Sathi Choudhury had also expired on 01.12.2025.
4. The counsel for the applicants therefore submits that the applicants came to know about the demise of respondent Nos. 1 & 5 only on 08.05.2026 vide an intimation letter issued under Order XXII Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure, 1908 by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent intimating about the demise of the respondent Nos. 1 & 5.
5. It is stated that prior to receipt of the intimation letter, the applicants had no knowledge or information regarding the death of respondent Nos. 1 & 5 and as such, could not take steps for substitution within the prescribed period of limitation.
6. It is submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that immediately after coming to know about the death of respondent Nos. 1 & 5, the applicant have taken steps to bring on record the legal heirs of respondent Nos. 1 & 5 and have taken steps to file necessary application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC as well as Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC. However, in the meantime a delay of 353 days has been caused in approaching this Hon’ble Court which is not intentional.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has fairly not made any objection regarding the delay. Accordingly the delay of 353 days in filing the application for setting aside the abatement is allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant