Back
GAHC010076922018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 1280/2018 In CRP 40/2018
1:HABIBOR RAHMAN AND 10 ORS S/O- LATE KOBEJUDDIN, R/O- VILL- JORDANGA PT-II, P.O AND P.S-
MANKACHAR, DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM
2: ABDUL KALAM S/O- LATE KOBEJUDDIN R/O- VILL- JORDANGA PT-II P.O AND P.S- MANKACHAR DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM
3: GOFFAR ALI S/O- HABIBOR RAHMAN R/O- VILL- JORDANGA PT-II P.O AND P.S- MANKACHAR DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM
4: APTAR ALI S/O- HOBIBOR RAHMAN R/O- VILL- JORDANGA PT-II P.O AND P.S- MANKACHAR DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM
5: SATTAR ALI S/O- HOBIBOR RAHMAN R/O- VILL- JORDANGA PT-II P.O AND P.S- MANKACHAR DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM
6: GEDU @ ABDUL HAI S/O- HOBIBOR RAHMAN R/O- VILL- JORDANGA PT-II P.O AND P.S- MANKACHAR DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM
7: JAHER ALI S/O- HOBIBOR RAHMAN R/O- VILL- JORDANGA PT-II P.O AND P.S- MANKACHAR DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM
8: GOHITON BIBI W/O- HABIBOR RAHMAN R/O- VILL- JORDANGA PT-II P.O AND P.S- MANKACHAR DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM
9: NUR SOLIMA W/O- ABDUL KALAM R/O- VILL- JORDANGA PT-II P.O AND P.S- MANKACHAR DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM
10: RUPALI BIBI W/O- BELU MIAH R/O- VILL- JORDANGA PT-II P.O AND P.S- MANKACHAR DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM
11: RUKIA KHATUN D/O- ABDUL KALAM R/O- VILL- JORDANGA PT-II P.O AND P.S- MANKACHAR DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM VERSUS
1:MUSSTT. UMMEY NESSA @ MUSSTT UMMEY KULSUM W/O- KOBAD HUSSAIN, R/O- VILL- JODONGA PT-II, P..O AND P.S-
MANKACHAR, DIST- SOUTH SALMARA, MANKACHAR, PIN- 783127, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 03-09-2018 Heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears on call for the opposite parties although as per order dated 01.08.2018, passed in the proceedings of the Lawazima Court, notice is duly served on the opposite party.
Hence, the matter is heard ex-parte against the opposite parties.
By this application under section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 229 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected revision.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite parties are the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 13/2013 (old)/Title Suit No. 38/2016 (new), filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which was decreed as per the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2017. It is submitted that due to erroneous advice by the counsel, the applicants had filed Title appeal No. 18/2017 before the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri and the said learned Court had dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 15.12.2017. It is submitted that the first appellate judgment was without any jurisdiction as the order was revisable under Section 115 CPC. Therefore, it is submitted that from the date of judgment passed by the learned trial Court on
20.05.2017, the delay has been calculated which comes to 229 days.
Having seen that the applicant was wrongly persuing the remedy of appeal in Court having no jurisdiction, the time consumed for persuing the appellate remedy by way of Title Appeal 18/2017 is a period spent bonafide litigating in a Court having no jurisdiction.
Therefore, under the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, this Court is inclined to hold that the grounds shown are good and sufficient cause, which had prevented the applicant in filing the connected appeal in time.
Therefore, the said delay of 229 days is hereby condoned.
This application stands allowed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
