BIREN DAS AND 4 ORS v. KANKAN DAS AND 2 ORS
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2020-02-20. BIREN DAS AND 4 ORS v. KANKAN DAS AND 2 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/4 GAHC010053982019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I. A. (Civil) 905/2019 1:BIREN DAS AND 4 ORS S/O LATE BELI RAM DAS, RESIDENT OF LAMB ROAD, AMBARI, GUWAHATI 01, PS LATASIL, DIST KAMRUP 2: SMTI PRANATI DAS d/O LATE BELI RAM DAS RESIDENT OF LAMB ROAD AMBARI GUWAHATI 01 PS LATASIL DIST KAMRUP 3: ON THE DEATH OF LATE DEEPANJALI BASUMATARY HER LEGAL HEIRS 3. 1: SHRI JATINDRA MOHAN BASUMATARY RESIDENT OF BORTHAKUR MILL ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 PS PALTAN BAZAAR DIS T KAMRUP 3. 2: SMTI DEBASHREE KASHYAP D/O SRI JATINDRA MOHAN BASUMATARY RESIDENT OF BORTHAKUR MILL ROAD ULUBARI Page No. # 2/4 GUWAHATI 7 PS PALTAN BAZAAR DIS T KAMRUP 3.
3: SMTI PRIYANKA KASHYAP D/O SRI JATINDRA MOHAN BASUMATARY RESIDENT OF BORTHAKUR MILL ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 PS PALTAN BAZAAR DIS T KAMRU VERSUS 1:KANKAN DAS AND 2 ORS S/O SRI ATUL DAS, RESIDENT OF ARYA NAGAR, PS PALTAN BAZAAR, GUWAHATI 16, KAMRUP ASSAM 2:SHRI ATUL DAS S/O LATE HARKANTA DAS RESIDENT OF ARYA NAGAR PS PALTAN BAZAAR GUWAHATI 16 3:SHRI GAUTAM CHANDRA NATH S/O TARUN CHANDRA NATH RESIDENT OF SIXTH MILE KHANAPARA GUWAHATI 22 PS DISPUR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. G MISHRA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA ORDER Date : 20-02-2020 Heard Mr. N Deka, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. MK Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party. Page No. # 3/4 This interlocutory application is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning a delay of 496 days in preferring the accompanying regular first appeal.
It is stated in the application that in fact there is a delay of one day in filing the appeal. If the earlier period during which the appellant had filed the Title Appeal No. 33 of 2016 in the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup, which was wrongly filed, is considered now under Section 14 of the LA Act, Mr. MK Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party does not object to the invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. But he raises an objection that the period between 02. 08. 2016 and 14. 09. 2016 and 12. 10. 2016 to 30. 10. 2016 had not been adequately explained. Mr. N Deka, learned counsel for the applicants stated that the said period is covered in the period consumed by the appellant in preferring the appeal before the wrong forum and therefore if is accepted that the appeal before the learned District Judge was prosecuted in good faith, the said period would also be covered.
Without going into the aspect as to whether the period objected would be covered or not, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if the delay in filing the accompanying regular appeal, which would be 496 days is condoned by accepting the plea of the applicant that the proceeding before the learned District Judge was instituted on good faith. But however, as agreed by the parties considering the inconvenience caused, a cost of Rs. 2,500/-is imposed on the applicant. Accordingly, the delay of 496 days in preferring the accompanying appeal stands condoned. Applicant to pay the opposite party the cost of Rs. 2,500/- within 2(two) weeks. Registry is directed to register the accompanying appeal and list the same The interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No. # 4/4 Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.