SUBENDU MOHAN TALUKDAR vs MRIDUL DEKA Advocate - MR. D GOGOI, ,MR. R DEKA,MS T WAPANGLA,S BORPUJARI — I.A.(Civil)/3391/2025
Case under Indian Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Of on 06th May 2026.
CNR: GAHC010218202025
e-Filing Number
19-09-2025
Filing Number
I.A.(Civil)/12510/2025
Filing Date
19-09-2025
Registration No
I.A.(Civil)/3391/2025
Registration Date
23-10-2025
Judge
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Coram
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Category
10301 - Interlocutory Application (Civil) ( 382 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Of
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SUBENDU MOHAN TALUKDAR
Adv. MR B DEORI,MR G BHARADWAJ,MR G BHARADWAJ, ,MR. A C SARMA,MR G BHARADWAJ
Respondent(s)
MRIDUL DEKA Advocate - MR. D GOGOI, ,MR. R DEKA,MS T WAPANGLA,S BORPUJARI
Orders
Summary: The Gauhati High Court granted condonation of 763 days' delay in filing a Regular Second Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The applicant claimed he was unaware of the Appellate Court's dismissal of his appeal (dated 10.05.2023) until receiving notice in a Money Execution Case in March 2025, and subsequently attempted settlement negotiations before filing the delayed appeal on 19.09.2025. The Court found the delay sufficiently explained with no deliberate negligence or willful inaction, and allowed the application, directing the Registry to register and list the RSA accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Gauhati High Court granted condonation of 763 days' delay in filing a Regular Second Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The applicant claimed he was unaware of the Appellate Court's dismissal of his appeal (dated 10.05.2023) until receiving notice in a Money Execution Case in March 2025, and subsequently attempted settlement negotiations before filing the delayed appeal on 19.09.2025. The Court found the delay sufficiently explained with no deliberate negligence or willful inaction, and allowed the application, directing the Registry to register and list the RSA accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts