Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/1823/2026 of NARAYAN RAJBONSHI Vs RABIN BORO on 15 September 2026
GAHC010098872026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1823/2026 NARAYAN RAJBONSHI SON OF LATE PANIRAM RAJBONSHI, BY PROFESSION - BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF SAOKUCHI, STADIUM ROAD, GUWAHATI - 781034, DISTRICT - KAMRUP
GAHC010098872026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1823/2026
NARAYAN RAJBONSHI
SON OF LATE PANIRAM RAJBONSHI, BY PROFESSION - BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF SAOKUCHI, STADIUM ROAD, GUWAHATI - 781034, DISTRICT
- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM.
VERSUS
RABIN BORO
SON OF LATE BABUL BORO, RESIDENT OF RUDRESHWAR, MINI
STADIUM, GELAPUKHARI, NORTH GUWAHATI, DISTRICT - KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN CODE - 781030.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A KABRA, MS S GUPTA
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
In
FAO Case No. 5645/2026
(Filing Number)
------------
Advocate for : MS. NAMRATA BARUAH
Advocate for : appearing for SHRI RABIN BORO
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
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
16.09.2026 [1] Heard Mr. A. Kabra, the learned counsel for the applicant. [2] On perusal of the office note dated 09.09.2026, it appears that notice issued to the opposite party by speed post was duly delivered to the addressee. As such, the notice is held to be duly served. However, no one is present on behalf of the opposite party. As such, let this matter be listed. [3] This interlocutory application is heard ex- parte against the opposite party. [4] This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condoning the delay of 189 days in preferring the connected appeal, wherein the order dated 18.08.2025, passed by the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No. 46 / 2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 25 of 2024. [5] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the reasons for delaying in preferring the connected appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation have been stated in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the interlocutory application. After going through the same, this court is of considered opinion that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, the delay of 189 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned. [6] The Registry is directed to register the connected First Appeal Against Order and list the same for admission in the next week on a date to be fixed by it. [7] This interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant