Page No.# 1/3 GAHC020004242025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/129/2025 MR. VIGHOTO CHISHI SON OF LATE GHOKUTO CHISHI, R/O H.NO. 63, SITIMI VILLAGE, KIPHIRE NAGALAN VERSUS C. ALEM SANGTAM AND 4 ORS R/O KIPHIRE VILLAGE, KIPHIRE NAGALAND 2:STATE OF NAGALAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DIRECTORATE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY KOHIMA NAGALAND 4:THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY KOHIMA NAGALAND 5:SHRI N. ATOVI SEMA R/O SITIMI VILLAGE KIPHIRE NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : A. ZHIMOMI, Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/3 Linked Case : WA/17/2025 MR. VIGHOTO CHISHI SON OF LATE GHOKUTO CHISHI R/O H.NO. 63 SITIMI VILLAGE KIPHIRE NAGALAND VERSUS C. ALEM SANGTAM AND 4 ORS R/O KIPHIRE VILLAGE KIPHIRE NAGALAND 2:STATE OF NAGALAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DIRECTORATE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY KOHIMA NAGALAND 4:THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY KOHIMA NAGALAND 5:SHR N. ATOVI SEMA R/O SITIMI VILLAGE KIPHIRE NAGALAND ------------ Advocate for : A. ZHIMOMI Advocate for : appearing for C. ALEM SANGTAM AND 4 ORS BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA O R D E R 29.10.2025 (S.K. Medhi, J) Heard Ms. Esther, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, who Page No.# 3/3 has filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 35 days in preferring the appeal against the Order dated 05.05.2025 passed in WP(C)/193/2021. By drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraphs- 4, 5 and 6, the learned counsel has submitted that the delay has occasioned because of factors beyond the control of the applicant. Also heard Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5, who have objected to the prayer for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay is required to be considered in a pragmatic and justice oriented manner as technicalities should not come into the way of dispensation of substantial justice. We have also noticed that the delay is not inordinate but of 35 days. Considering the above, the delay of 35 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. I.A. accordingly stands allowed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant