Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030007432024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/195/2024 Sh. Henry Zokhuma S/o P.T. Sena (L), R/o Chhinga Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Sh. Lalthlamuana and 3 Ors. S/o Khualdawla, R/o Laipuitlang, Aizawl, Rothangvunga Building near SIPMIU Office 2:The Secretary 3:The Director 4:The Joint Directo Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. C Lalfakzuala Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. T Lalnunsiama for R1 Linked Case : RFA/45/2024 Sh. Henry Zokhuma S/o P.T. Sena (L) R/o Chhinga Veng Aizawl Mizoram VERSUS Sh. Lalthlamuana and 3 Ors. S/o Khualdawla R/o Laipuitlang Page No.# 2/5 Aizawl Rothangvunga Building near SIPMIU Office 2:The Secretary Land Revenue and Settlement Department Government of Mizoram Aizawl 3:The Director Land Revenue and Settlement Department Government of Mizoram Aizawl 4:The Joint Director Land Revenue and Settlement Department Government of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. C Lalfakzuala Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. T Lalnunsiama for R1 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER Date : 07-04-2025 Heard Ms. H. Lalrosangi, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. J.H. Ricky Lalruatfela, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC for condonation of a delay of 335 days in filing an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-IV, Aizawl, Mizoram in Declaratory Suit No. 37/2016. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay in filing the appeal against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2023 is due to the fact that the applicant first came to know about the impugned judgment and Page No.# 3/5 order when the same was furnished to him by his previous counsel only on 22.11.2022. The applicant was informed by his previous counsel that he needed to engage a new Lawyer who would be able to file the appeal. The applicant took some time looking for an appropriate Lawyer, wherein he was also informed by his previous counsel that he needed to apply for a copy of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2023. Accordingly, he had applied for the certified true copy of the impugned judgment and order on 06.03.2024, which was received by the applicant on 24.03.2024. The applicant immediately contacted one counsel, however, since the said counsel was engaged as Government Advocate, his case was handed over to another counsel, Mr. J.H Ramneihmawia on 06.06.2024. The applicant handed over all available documents to his new counsel and he met his new counsel several times in his chamber. However, his new counsel then appeared in the preliminary examination for the post of Grade-I, Mizoram Judicial Service on 14.09.2024. Later, he came to know that his counsel has qualified for appearing in the written examination and therefore, he handed over the brief to a new counsel, who is the present counsel. The present counsel then took almost 2 (two) months to finalized and prepare the connected appeal. This had caused undue delay of 335 days which is not due to the negligence on the part of the applicant but mainly due to the requirement to change his counsels to appear on his behalf in the appeal against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2023. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment and order of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, wherein the Apex Court had condoned the delay of 883 days by observing that during these days when everybody is fully occupied with Page No.# 4/5 his own avocation of life an omission to adopt such extra vigilance need not be used as a ground to depict him as a litigant not aware of his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences. 5. Mr. J.H. Ricky Lalruatfela, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate for State respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submit that they have not filed any written objection and do not object to the prayer made by the applicant for condonation of 335 days in filing the appeal against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2023. 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, this Court on perusal of the explanation given by the applicant finds that the applicant had taken steps for filing the appeal against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2023 by consulting the counsel engaged by him before the learned Trial Court. It is also seen that he had taken the necessary steps to engaged a counsel to file an appeal, however, since the counsel engaged by him had chosen to appear in the examination conducted for recruitment of Grade-I Officers, Mizoram Judicial Service, the appellant had to engaged another counsel. This Court thus finds that the explanation given by the applicant for the delay in filing the appeal against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2023 is acceptable and not due to negligence and laches on his part. 7. Thus, in view of the fact that the learned counsels for the respondents have also chosen not to raised any objection against the condonation of the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2023, the delay of 335 days stands condoned and accordingly, I.A. (Civil) No. 195/2024 is allowed and disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 JUDGE Comparing Assistant