Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030005672024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RFA/32/2024 Smt. Nancy R.L. Mami D/o R. Thansiama, R/o Salem Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Sh. Daniel Vanlalhlima R/o Mualpui Salem Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. K. Vanlalneihpuia Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 20.07.2026 Mr. K. Vanlalneihpuia, learned counsel submits that pursuant to the last Court’s Order dated 16.07.2026, he has filed his power to appear on behalf of the appellant and he has also submitted the NOC from the previous counsel. [2.] Upon perusal of the NOC as well as the Vakalatnama, the appearance of Mr. K. Vanlalneihpuia, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is accepted. [3.] No one appears for the sole respondent. Page No.# 2/4 [4.] Office Note dated 07.05.2026 indicates that duly signed AD card has been received back from the sole respondent on 14.01.2026. [5.] Upon perusal of the AD card, notice to the sole respondent is hereby accepted to be complete. [6.] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that aggrieved with the Order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Aizawl in Guardianship Application No. 128 of 2023, allowing the said application in favour of the present respondent and thereby, directing the issuance of Guardianship Certificate of the minor son born between the rival parties i.e. George Ramthanpuia, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. [7.] The learned counsel submits that the impugned Order dated 31.01.2024 was passed ex-parte, since the appellant was not served any notice from the Court about the Guardianship Application being filed by the instant respondent. The respondent on two (2) occasions had filed the same postal receipts before the Court and the same by itself cannot be accepted as notice being served to the addressee. Under the circumstance, the learned counsel submits that the impugned Order dated 31.01.2024 should be set aside. The learned counsel also submits that despite the impugned Order, the child is staying with the appellant. The learned counsel in support of his submission has drawn the Page No.# 3/4 attention of this Court to the Order-sheet of the learned Trial Court dated 12.12.2023 & 19.01.2023, wherein, the filing of the postal receipts by the applicant/present respondent was recorded. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the postal receipts, which were submitted by the applicant on 12.12.2023 & 19.01.2023 and which has been annexed in the present appeal at Page Nos. 37 & 38. [8.] Upon perusal of the postal receipts, it is seen that both the receipts are one and the same. Production of said postal receipts, thus indicate that the steps have been taken to sent the notice by post but in absence of any acknowledgement from the addressee, the postal receipts itself cannot be construed as notice being served to the person concerned. Since the respondent has failed to appear before this Court despite receipt of notice early this year in the beginning of January, 2026, this Court is of the considered view that there is no point in keeping the matter pending and that the matter should be remanded back to the learned Trial Court for reconsideration after giving an opportunity to both the parties to contest the guardianship application. [9.] Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 31.01.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for re-consideration. [10.] The appellant shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 27th of July, Page No.# 4/4 2026 along with a copy of this Order and thereafter, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice to the respondent (the father of the child) by fixing a certain date for appearance. On appearance of the parties concerned, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and make an endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously after giving an opportunity of hearing to the rival parties. [11.] The appeal accordingly is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant