Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23450 (GAU)

SMT. MEPULILA v. SMT. NEMLA CHANG

I.A.(Civil)/175/2024 · 2025-04-24

Kakheto Sema

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC020006802024 2025:GAU-NL:171 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/175/2024 SMT. MEPULILA W/O LT. N. AMONG CHANG R/O HOUSE. NO. 213 KUMLONG WARD MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND VERSUS SMT. NEMLA CHANG W/O LT. N. AMONG CHANG R/O HOUSE. NO. A-273 OLD MEDICAL COLONY, TUENSANG, NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : MOA JAMIR, Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : FA/3/2024 SMT. MEPULILA W/O LT. N. AMONG CHANG R/O HOUSE. NO. 213 KUMLONG WARD MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND VERSUS Page No.# 2/3 SMT. NEMLA CHANG W/O LT. N. AMONG CHANG R/O HOUSE. NO. A-273 OLD MEDICAL COLONY TUENSANG NAGALAND ------------ Advocate for : MOA JAMIR Advocate for : appearing for SMT. NEMLA CHANG BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAKHETO SEMA O R D E R 25.04.2025 Heard Ms. Shisa Jamir, learned counsel for the applicant. On 24.02.2025, this Court had allowed the appellant to take fresh steps for service of notice on the sole respondent by substitute summon through newspaper publication in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sole respondent had refused to accept the dasti service. Thereafter, on 27.03.2025, the appellant was further allowed to take fresh steps for publication of the notice in the local newspaper for 2 (two) consecutive days and to file affidavit in compliance thereof. In terms of the Order dated 27.03.2025 passed by this Court, the appellant has filed the affidavit dated 24.04.2025 stating service of notice upon the sole respondent by paper publication. The notice upon the sole respondent is accordingly deemed served. Page No.# 3/3 The Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 62 (sixty-two) days in filing the connected appeal. The reasons for the delay have been stated in paragraph-6 of the application. On perusal of the application seeking for condonation of delay this Court is satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. The delay of 62 (sixty-two) days in filing the connected appeal is accordingly condoned. Application stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant