I.A./1604/2016 of NABA SAIKIA and 2 ORS, Vs BHOGESWAR DUTTA and 2 ORS, on 23 December 2016

Conclusion

I.A. 1604/2016BEFOREHON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

Heard Mr. B Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and also heardMr. R Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

Perused the office note dated 16.09.2016, wherefrom, it indicates that AD card from respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been received by the registry. Respondent No.1 is already represented by Mr. Sarma, learned counsel. So far, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, this matter will proceed ex-parte.

This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoningthe delay of 13 days in preferring the petition under Order 9 Rule IX of connected second appeal.

Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel submits that the delay was called in filing the petition, for restoration of the second appeal, was due to absence of the learned counsel owing to the sudden illness of his father on the particular date, on which the connected second appeal was listed and which escaped the note of the learned counsel. It came to the knowledge of the learned counsel on 25.04.2016. Thereafter in preferring this petition the delay of 13 days occurred and as such, Mr. Kaushik submits that the grounds shown in this petition are sufficient to condone the delay.

Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 fairly submits that he has no objection in the event the delay is condoned and the second appeal is restored back to file.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed thereby condoning the 13 days delay in preferring the petition for restoration of the second appeal.This petition is accordingly disposed of.