Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040012512024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/170/2024 Smti Meena Bagang Wife of Sangam Bagang, permanent resident of Chayang Bagang Village, PO Chayang Tajo, District East Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh presently residing at Type III Colony, Seppa, PO Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Taluk Kilo Son of Shri Nibo Kilo, permanent resident of Chayang Tajo Village, PO Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh presently residing at Type I Colony, Seppa, PO Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Tayum Son, Advocate for the Respondent : Abhai Kumar Singh, Tsering Nyima,Nabam Kakum BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 22-04-2026 Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed praying for condonation of delay of 365 days in filing the connected Civil Revision petition against the judgment dated 14.09.2023 Page No.# 2/3 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bomdila in Regular Civil Appeal No.03/2023. 3. It is noticed that on the prayer of learned counsel for the respondents, this Court had granted 2(two) weeks time to file objection by an order dated 03.11.2025, thereafter, 3(three) weeks further time was granted on 07.01.2026. However, neither the learned counsel for the respondent is present nor any objection has been filed. 4. Having considered, this application is taken up for consideration. 5. An appeal being as Regular Civil Appeal No.03/2023 was filed before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bomdila challenging the Judgment and order dated 04.04.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa in Money Suit No.13/2022. Essentially, the challenge in the appeal was of the award of interest by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), at the rate of 10%, which, according to the applicant, is exorbitant. After consideration of the appeal, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal vide an order dated 14.09.2023, being time barred. Being aggrieved, the applicant is contemplating to file the civil revision petition before this Court. 6. Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the applicant while referring to the explanation proffered in application for delay in filing the connected civil revision petition, submits that that due to death of 2(two) family members, consecutively within a period of 6(six) months, the applicant could not file the connected civil revision petition within the limitation Page No.# 3/3 period. Accordingly, prays for condonation of delay of 365 days in filing the connected civil revision petition. 7. Having considered the explanation proffered and being satisfied with the explanation, I deem it appropriate to allow this application as the grounds for delay in preferring the connected civil revision petition appears to be germane in view of the fact that the delay has been caused due to death of family members of the applicant which has prevented the applicant from filing the connected civil revision petition within a limitation period. 8. Accordingly, delay of 365 days in filing the connected civil revision petition No.40/2024, within the limitation period, is hereby condoned. 9. Interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant