Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030006052024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/164/2024 Smt. Lalhmingsangi D/o Sh. R. Sangkima (L) R/o Bethlehem Vengthlang VERSUS Ms. Ruthi Lalruatfeli though Legal Guardian Smt. Rosangzeli D/o Sh. R. Sangkima (L) R/o Bethlehem Vengthlang, Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalfakawma Advocate for the Respondent : Linked Case : RSA/5/2024 Smt. Lalhmingsangi D/o Sh. Sangkima (L) R/o Bethlehem Vengthlang Aizawl VERSUS Ms. Ruthi Lalruatfeli through Legal Guardian Smt. Rosangzeli D/o Sh. R. Sangkima (L) R/o Bethlehem Vengthlang Aizawl Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalfakawma Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. Jacinta Zothanmawii B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 14.02.2025 Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Jacinta Zothanmawii, learne counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 37 days occurred in filing the connected Regular Second Appeal. 3. The facts of the case is that the respondent had filed a probate case before the Trial Court and the Trial Court by Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2022 allowed the said suit in favour of the respondent. 4. Against the aforesaid order of the Trial Court, the applicant filed regular first appeal before the Court of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl wherein the First Appellate Court by Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2024 was pleased to dismiss the first appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Order of the First Appellate Court, the applicant has preferred the second appeal before this Court. However, in preferring the second appeal, a delay of 37 days has occurred. Accordingly, the instant condonation application has been filed. 6. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the applicant has fairly conceded before Page No.# 3/4 this Court that the delay of 37 days had occurred due to the fact that he was shifting his office at that relevant point of time when the appeal ought to have been drafted and filed. 7. Per contra, Ms. Jacinta Zothanmawii, learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the prayer for condoning the delay on the ground that the applicant had sought the certified copy of the impugned Judgment and Order of the First Appellate Court at the fag end of the expiry of the Limitation Period and that the office was shifted between the period from 04.09.2024 to 13.09.2024 and hence, the delay is totally deliberate and intentional and therefore, the same ought not to be condoned. 8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. Paragaraph 2 of the condonation application is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “(i) That it may be submitted that the prescribed period of limitation of 90 (Ninety) days had expired on 14.08.2024. That Certified True Copy of the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2024 passed in RFA 27 of 2023 was applied for on 08.08.2024. However, certified true copy of the same was furnished to the counsel only on 03.09.2024. As such, the period from 15.08.2024 to 03.09.2024 may be condoned by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Copy of the Application for CTC and CTC of Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2024 are annexed and marked marked hereto as Annexure - 1 & 2 respectively. (ii) That although the entire case file was handed over to the counsel, the counsel so engaged could not immediately attend to the case as the said counsel was busy with shifting of office from Treasury square to Chawnpui veng for the period between 04.09.2024 to 13.09.2024. (iii) That thereafter, the counsel for the Applicant/ Appellant took four (4) days to make the necessary drafting and required number of copies. Thereafter, the said Appeal with its connected applications was filed on 20.09.2024.” Page No.# 4/4 10. Apparent reading of the aforesaid averments made in support of the condonation prayer that the delay essentially occurred due to the shifting of the office of the counsel appearing for the applicant. 11. The condonation of delay being the discretion of the Court, it is for the Court to convinced on the explanation set out in support of the condonation prayer that the same is sufficient and bonafide. 12. I am of the unhesitant view that the averments made in support of the condonation prayer are sufficient and bonafide and therefore, the condonation of 37 days in filing the regular second appeal stands condoned. The IA is accordingly allowed. Disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant