JASMINE AKHTAR and 3 ORS. v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD and ANR.
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2020-12-21. JASMINE AKHTAR and 3 ORS. v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD and ANR. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/3 GAHC010271762017 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(I/O)/321/2017 JASMINE AKHTAR and 3 ORS. D/O- LATE FARUK ISLAM, C/O- RAJIB SHARMA, R/O- BORDOLOI NAGAR, P. O AND P. S- TINSUKIA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM 2: PARVEEN AKHTAR D/O- LATE FARUK ISLAM C/O- RAJIB SHARMA R/O- BORDOLOI NAGAR P. O AND P. S- TINSUKIA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 3: BAHARUL ISLAM S/O- LATE FARUK ISLAM C/O- RAJIB SHARMA R/O- BORDOLOI NAGAR P. O AND P. S- TINSUKIA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 4: BADRUL ISLAM S/O- LATE FARUK ISLAM C/O- RAJIB SHARMA R/O- BORDOLOI NAGAR P. O AND P. S- TINSUKIA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSA VERSUS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD and ANR. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. , HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT G-9, ALI YAVER JUNG MARG, BANDRAE, MUMBAI AND ALSO HAVING AND OFFICE OF ITS ASSAM OIL DIVISION AT DIGBOI, P. O AND P. S- DIGBOI, Page No. # 2/3 DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM 2:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IOC AOD DIGBOI P. O AND P.
S- DIGBOI DIST- TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DHAR Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N DEKA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI ORDER Date : 21-12-2020 Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 22. 08. 2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in Misc. (J) Case No. 48/2013 in connection with Title Appeal No. 11/2012 whereby an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act filed by the respondent/ appellant was allowed by condoning the delay. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and even the petition did not disclose as to how many days delay was sought to be condoned. However, the learned Civil Judge without applying judicial mind allowed the petition and thereby condoned the delay. 4.
The learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the number of days for condoning the delay was not mentioned in the petition, the date of judgment and the time required for obtaining certified copy would show that delay was not more than 60 days. The Page No. # 3/3 learned Civil Judge also mentioned in the order, that the delay was less than 90 days. The impugned order shows that the learned Civil Judge has discussed elaborately the causes of delay and was satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily explained and therefore, condoned the delay. 5. The impugned order condoning the delay and accepting the causes shown by the petitioner as ”sufficient cause” more or less falls within the discretion of the court and from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, it cannot be said that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, rendering the order suffering from any illegality, or jurisdictional error.
It is settled position that sufficient cause in the context of condonation of delay has to be construed liberally and technically should not be allowed to obstruct the substantial justice. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the causes of delay shown in the petition, the impugned order cannot be said to have suffered from any illegality or jurisdictional fault requiring interference by this court in exercising of revisional power. Therefore, this petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. 7. Considering the fact that the appeal was filed in the year 2012, the parties are directed to appear before the appellate court on or before 22. 01. 2021. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE 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.