Page No.# 1/9 GAHC030001322025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/41/2025 Smt. Lalnunthari D/o Rozika, R/o Bungkawn Vengthar, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Sh. C. Vanlalrinchhana and 5 Ors. S/o Sh. Vanlalvena (L), R/o Mission Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram 2:The State of Mizoram 3:Secretary 4:The Director 5:Settlement Officer 6:Asst. Settlement Office Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. Linda Zothantluangi for R1 Linked Case : RFA/8/2025 Smt. Lalnunthari D/o Rozika Page No.# 2/9 R/o Bungkawn Vengthar Aizawl Mizoram VERSUS Sh. C. Vanlalrinchhana and 5 Ors. S/o Sh. Vanlalvena (L) R/o Mission Veng Aizawl Mizoram 2:The State of Mizoram Represented by the Chief Secretary Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 3:Secretary Land Revenue and Settlement Aizawl District Aizawl Mizoram 4:The Director Land Revenue and Settlement Aizawl District Aizawl Mizoram 5:Settlement Officer Land Revenue and Settlement Aizawl District Aizawl Mizoram 6:Asst. Settlement Officer Land Revenue and Settlement Aizawl District Aizawl Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. Linda Zothantluangi for R1 Page No.# 3/9 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 14.10.2025 Heard Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Linda Zothantluangi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Addl. AG for the State respondents. 2. This is an application filed u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Order 41 Rule 3A Civil Procedure Code for condoning delay of 61 days in preferring the appeal against the impugned Order dated 04.10.2024, in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2018, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) – II, Aizawl District. 3. Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason for the delay of 61 days in filing the connected appeal has been duly explained at para 4 of the application which was due to certain unavoidable circumstances and not due to the negligence or in action of the applicant. The learned counsel submitted that after the issuance of the Page No.# 4/9 impugned Order in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2018 dated 04.10.2024, the certified true copy was applied for on 13.11.2024, delivered on 19.12.2024. The applicant then took steps through RTI for obtaining information with regard to the issuance of the Heirship Certificate in the mutation of LSC AZL – 27 of 1973, and required for filing the appeal against the impugned Judgment and Order. However, the RTI application was rejected vide Order dated 16.01.2025, for which the applicant had filed a RTI appeal against the rejection Order dated 16.07.2025 to the Appellant Authority, since the applicant was of the considered view that a copy of heirship certificate forms the main part of the appeal. 4. The learned counsel submitted that since no prompt reply in the RTI appeal petition was received, the applicant, due to paucity of time, being fully aware of the limitation period, took steps and filed the Regular First Appeal on 04.03.2025 before a copy of the Heirship Certificate was received which however, resulted in a delay of 61 days. He submitted that the main cause of the delay was due to the none furnishing of the copy of the Heirship Certificate No. 711 of 2012 dated 10.09.2012, promptly by the concerned authorities. 5. The learned counsel submitted that since the delay in filing the Page No.# 5/9 appeal was not due to the negligence on the part of the applicant, the instant delay of 61 days in filing the appeal may be condoned so that the applicant/appellant would be given the chance to challenge the impugned Judgment dated 04.10.2024, in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2018 which was wrongly decreed against the applicant/appellant. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has relied on the Judgments of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in 1988 7 SCC 123 (Para 12 and 13) and State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and Ors reported in 2005 3 SCC 752 (Para 14). 7. Ms. Linda Zothantluangi, learned counsel for the private respondent, on the other hand, strongly objected to the condonation of the delay by submitting that even though the applicant submitted that he had made an RTI application for obtaining heirship certificate, however, a perusal of the plaint copy filed by the applicant/appellant before the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2018, on a reading of para 2 of the plaint, it is clear that the applicant was already aware that the respondent had obtain a Heirship Certificate and therefore cannot plea, that the copy of the Heirship Certificate was applied for under the RTI at a belated stage. Page No.# 6/9 8. The learned counsel for the private respondent further submitted that though the Judgment of the Order was delivered on 14.10.2024, there is no mentioned in the condonation application, as to when the applicant got to know about the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2024. The learned counsel also submitted that the applicant had mentioned about the illness of the applicant, however, no medical documents have been enclosed to substantiate her claim and therefore the claim that the delay was due to the illness of the applicant cannot be considered. 9. The learned counsel has relied on the Judgments of the Apex Court in Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfileds Ltd. reported in 1962 AIR 361 wherein the Apex Court held that even if sufficient caused has been shown a party is not entitled to condonation of delay as a matter of right. That the prove of a sufficient caused is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court if the sufficient caused is not proved, the application for condonation of delay has to be dismiss on the ground. 10. The learned counsel has also relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran & Anr. reported in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 560 wherein the Apex Court had held that delay should not Page No.# 7/9 be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. 11. She also relied on the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy Vs. Special Deputy Collector (La) reported in 2024 INSC 286 by submitting that the Apex Court had observed that merely because some persons obtain relief in a similar matter does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefits if the Court is not satisfy with the caused show for the delay. 12. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties. It is noted that the applicant after the issuance of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2024, in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2018 had applied for the certified true copy of the impugned Judgment on 13.11.2024, which was delivered on 09.12.2024, which is within in the limitation period. Thereafter, he had taken steps for obtaining a copy of the heirship certificate said to be issued to the respondent by filing the RTI application on 17.12.2024, which was rejected on 16.01.2025, and thereafter, the applicant had filed the first RTI Appeal u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 22.01.2025. It is also noted that since no response was received from the Appellant Authority the instant RFA No. 8 of 2025 was Page No.# 8/9 filed on 04.03.2025, which had resulted in the delay of 61 days. 13. This Court at this stage find it fit to refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) wherein the Apex Court had held that there is no presumption that delay at approaching the Court shall always deliberate and had held that the words ‘sufficient caused’ u/s 5 of the Limitation Act should received a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The same principal was applied in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and Ors (supra). This Court also finds that the Apex Court in Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran & Anr. (supra) is regarding a delay of 1116 days and will not applicable in the instant case. The case of Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfileds Ltd. (supra) is also not aptly applicable since sufficient cause is found in the instant case. 14. This Court finds that from the explanation given by the applicant for the delay of 61 days in filing the Regular First Appeal, the delay was not due to the in – action or negligence on the part of the applicant and find it appropriate to given a liberal construction to the explanation give by the Page No.# 9/9 applicant. It is also noted that it is not the case of the respondents that the copy of the Heirship Certificate No. 711 of 2012 dated 10.09.2012 was already available with the applicant when the matter was heard before the learned Trial Court. 15. In view of the above, this Court is of the consider view that the delay of 61 days in filing the Regular First Appeal against the Judgment & Order dated No. 8 of 2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2018 was not due to any negligence or in - action on the part of the applicant and find that ‘sufficient caused’ has been made out for the delay. 16. Accordingly, the condonation application I.A. No. 41 of 2025 stands allowed and disposed of. 17. On the disposal of the I.A the connected RFA No. 8 of 2025 is to be listed in the next week. JUDGE Comparing Assistant