Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030006552024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/177/2024 Sh. Lalthavela S/o Thangthuama, R/o Kulikawn, Chekbawk VERSUS Smt. Ramengzuali and 2 Ors. W/o S. Beihrosa, R/o Zarkawt, Aizawl, Aizawl District, Mizoram 2:Smt. C. Liankhumi 3:Smt. K. Vanlalhriat Advocate for the Petitioner : Lalbiakthuama Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. P C Lalthangmawia for R2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO JUDGEMENT Date : 17.03.2026 Heard Mr. Lalbiakthuama, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Ms. Gina Vanlalhruaii, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. [2.] By filing this application, the applicant seeks condonation of 304 days delay in filing the connected Regular First Appeal against the Order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division – III, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. Page No.# 2/4 40 of 2023 and also against the decree drawn on the same date. The learned counsel for the applicant by referring to the application submits that the applicant purchased one RCC building covered under LSC No. 1025/12/01/514 of 2005 on 12.12.2022 from the respondent No. 2 at the cost price of Rs.50 lakhs and the applicant had paid 35 lakhs in advance and the balance of 15 lakhs is to be paid later on. According to the applicant, he was not aware about a Civil Suit pending before the Trial Court i.e. Civil Suit No. 40/2023 filed by the respondent No. 1 and that he came to know about the order and decree passed by the Trial Court on 25.09.2023 only on 04.04.2024. He further came to learn that pursuant thereto, the respondent No. 1 had filed Execution Case No. 16 of 2024 and the same was pending before the Court. The applicant further came to learn that the Order and Decree was passed by the Trial Court based on a compromised agreement reached between the respondent No. 1 & respondent No. 2 on 06.09.2023, and by which time, whereas, the applicant had already purchased the building from the respondent No. 2 on 12.12.2022. The applicant therefore sought for legal advice and engaged his lawyer, who took steps for filing a review petition along with an application for condonation of delay. [3.] C.M Application No. 297 of 2024 was filed for condoning the delay in filing the Review Petition and the application was allowed vide order 29.04.2024. However, the learned Trial Court upon considering the Review Petition vide order dated 26.09.2024, dismissed the Review Petition. The petitioner thereafter make preparation for filing the instant appeal and accordingly the appeal could be filed on 23.10.2024. The learned counsel submits that in filing the appeal, a delay of 304 days has occasioned but the delay is not on account of inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant but for un-avoidable and bona-fide reasons. Page No.# 3/4 [4.] The learned counsel in support of his submission that Court should construe the word “sufficient cause” with liberal construction so as to advance the cause of justice subject to their being no mala-fide on the part of the applicant has relied upon the case of N Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123. The learned counsel also has relied upon the case of H. Guruswamy and Ors. Vs. A Krishnaiah since deceased by LRS reported in (2025) INSC 53 to contend that the Rules of Limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties and that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The learned counsel submits that the applicant has been enable to demonstrate that he had taken all the necessary steps upon gaining knowledge about the passing of the order by the Trial in Civil Suit and hence, the delay in filing the connected appeal may be condoned. The learned counsel also relied upon the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2024) INSC 577. [5.] The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that they have no objections if the delay is condoned. [6.] Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 however submits that the applicant has miserably failed to explain the delay with sufficient cause. He also submits that the authorities relied upon by the applicant’s counsel are in fact not in his favour but against him. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant cannot be said to be partly aggrieved in view of the fact that the subject matter of the Civil Suit was in respect of LSC 796 of 2008, whereas, the claim of the applicant is in respect of LSC No. 1025/12/01/514 of 2005. He therefore submits that no ground for condoning the delay has been made out and the application seeking condonation of delay for filing the connected appeal should be rejected. Page No.# 4/4 [7.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. [8.] The claim of the applicant is that he had purchased the RCC building standing on the LSC in question on 12.12.2022 from the respondent No.2. However, Civil Suit No.40/2023 was filed by the respondent No.1 against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division-III, Aizawl and the said Suit came to be disposed of pursuant to the compromised agreement dated 06.09.2023 signed between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As regards the submission that the LSC which was under consideration before the Trial Court was in respect of 796 of 2008 and not the LSC which the present applicant claims, it may be seen that one of the prayer made in the Civil Suit was for a direction to the defendants in the Civil Suit not to relocate the area of LSC No. 1025/12/01/514 of 2005 into the area of LSC No.796 of 2008. Therefore, it cannot be determine at this stage whether the claim of the applicant would not have any bearing in respect of LSC No. 796/2008. The concern at this stage is with regard to the delay in filing the connected appeal. Considering the explanations tendered and the authorities relied upon by the applicant’s counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has been able to explain the delay in filing the connected appeal with sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 304 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned. [9.] I.A. stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant