ORDER

Heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 7.

2. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1965 is preferred by the applicant for condoning delay of 218 days in preferring the review petition, under Chapter X of the Gauhati High Court Rules, read with Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2024, passed by this Court in Regular First Appeal, herein after RFA No. 82/2018.

3. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has preferred a review petition, under Chapter X of the Gauhati High Court Rules, read with Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, for reviewing the judgment and order dated 20.12.2024, passed by this Court in RFA No. 82/2018. Mr. Deka also submits that the present applicant is a necessary party in the RFA No. 82/2018.

3.1. Mr. Deka further submits that during the pendency of the RFA, the present opposite party Nos. 1 – 7 filed an interlocutory application, being I.A.(Civil) No. 4078/2019, for impleadment of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the Title Suit No. 277/2013, in the RFA, including the present applicant, as necessary party and this Court, vide order dated 02.12.2019, was pleased to issue notice to the defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3, including the present applicant and on receipt of the notice, the applicant entered appearance in the said IA. But, the same was closed on 20.12.2024, for not being pressed.

3.2. Mr. Deka also submits that the present applicant was not aware about the judgment and order, passed by this court on 20.12.2024, in the aforementioned RFA and also about closing of the aforesaid IA on 20.12.2024 and that the same came to the knowledge of the applicant only on 01.04.2025, when he contacted with the Advocate to inquire about the outcome of the said IA. Thereafter, the applicant had contacted with the local counsel and also one counsel of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Then, as per advice of the counsel of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, one Special Leave Petition, being SLP (Civil) No. 7498/2025, was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But, the same was dismissed on withdrawal on 25.07.2025. Thereafter, the applicant had applied for the order of the said SLP on 29.07.2025, but he received the same on 08.08.2025. Then, he engaged one counsel to prepare the review petition for being filed before this Court and the said counsel took 16 days time to prepare the same from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment and order in the aforementioned RFA and in that process, 218 days delay have been occurred, but there is no delay from the date of the order of dismissal of the SLP. Mr. Deka also submits that the delay is not intentional rather it is circumstantial and that the applicant has a good case and the same may be heard on merit. Otherwise the applicant would suffer serious prejudice.

3.3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, Mr. Deka has contended to allow this application.

4. Per-contra, Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 – 7, has vehemently opposed the application. His contention is that the applicant has suppressed material facts and pointed out that the applicant had made a false statement before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that he was inadvertently not arrayed as a Respondent in the RFA No. 82 of 2018, and the same is an incorrect statement made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on oath.

4.1. Mr. Chouwdhury has pointed out that this Court while hearing the RFA No. 82 of 2018, vide order dated 26.11.2019 (ANNEXURE-R-2) had directed the learned counsel for these respondents to examine as to whether the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was required to be impleaded in the R.F.A. No. 82 of 2018, filed by the present respondents. Mr. Chowdhury also submits that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were not made respondents in the RFA as the present respondents did not claim any reliefs against the Defendant Nos. 1,