I.A.(Civil)/1907/2026 of HATEM ALI Vs ABDUL MANNAN AND 2 ORS. on 15 September 2026

ORDER

16.09.2026 [1] Heard Mr. A. Roshid, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. Hoque, the learned counsel for the claimants/opposite parties. [2] On perusal of the Office Note dated 28.08.2026, it appears that notice issued to opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 have been duly delivered to them. As such, same is held to be duly served. [3] This interlocutory application has been filed by Hatem Ali, who is the owner of the offending vehicle praying for condoning the delay of 113 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal. [4] Mr. A. Roshid, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has stated reasons for delay in paragraph No. 8 of the instant interlocutory application. [5] The learned counsel for the claimants/ opposite parties has not objected to the prayer for condonation of delay. [6] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. After considering the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application, 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. [7] As such, the delay of 113 days in filing the connected MACAppeal is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed. [8] The Registry is directed to register the connected MACAppeal and list the same for admission after a week, on a date to be fixed by it.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant