Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030004872025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/122/2025 Sh. M.C. Kaptluanga and Anr. S/o Chhanrehlova (L), R/o Venghlui, Aizawl, Mizoram 2: Smt. Vanlaltluang VERSUS Smt. C. Lalthlamuani (Nutei) D/o Rohluta, R/o Bawngkawn, Aizawl, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalfakawma Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei Linked Case : RFA/32/2025 Sh. M.C. Kaptluanga and Anr. S/o Chhanrehlova (L) R/o Venghlui Aizawl Mizoram 2: Smt. Vanlaltluangi W/o M.C. Kaptluanga R/o Venghlui Aizawl Mizoram VERSUS Smt. C. Lalthlamuani (Nutei) D/o Rohluta R/o Bawngkawn Page No.# 2/4 Aizawl Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalfakawma Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 02.12.2025 Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei, learned counsel for the sole respondent. By way of this interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 169 days in preferring the accompanying RFA No. 32/2025 against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division-I), Aizawl in Money Suit No. 46/2020. The applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in the Money Suit No. 46/2020 preferred the accompanying RFA No. 32/2025. However, due to medical and health conditions of the applicant No. 1, there was a delay of 169 days in filing the said regular first appeal. Accordingly, the present condonation application has been filed. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to the applicant No. 1 having suffered stroke in the month of June, 2024 and also Page No.# 3/4 having suffered from gastrointestinal infection for which he was under constant medical care, the appeal could not be filed on time. He further submits that the delay having been occurred due to medical exigencies, the same is neither willful nor intentional and hence, the explanations tendered for the aforesaid delay may kindly be accepted. Per contra, Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei, learned counsel for the sole respondent while vehemently opposing the prayer for condonation of the delay, submits that there is no day-to-day explanation as regards the delay caused in filing the regular first appeal. He further submits that despite the applicant No. 1 stating in the condonation application that he had summoned his family members to his residence in the month of March, 2025 for taking a decision in order to prefer the connected appeal, however, the applicants contacted their legal counsel only in the month of April, 2025. He further submits that despite there being a meeting in the month of April, 2025, no decision till 16.05.2025 was taken by the applicant No. 1 to instruct his legal counsel to go ahead with the appeal. He further submits that the aforesaid clearly indicates that the applicants were not pursuing their rights diligently and hence, the explanations are not sufficient enough for exercising the discretionary power of this Court for condonation of the said delay. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It appears that the applicant No. 1 upon having suffered stroke in the month of June, 2024 was under constant medical care. That apart, he also suffered gastrointestinal infection and liver problems, for which he had to constantly undergo medical treatment. It further appears that though he had tried to discuss the matter with his family members after he took complete bed Page No.# 4/4 rest during the month of February, 2025, a decision to prefer the appeal could only be taken in the month of April, 2025. It appears that the applicant No. 1 despite his medical condition was making a fair attempt to pursue his family members to assist him in preferring the appeal and accordingly, ultimately could prefer the appeal only after expiry of the statutory limit prescribed for filing the appeal. The explanations appears to be sufficient and bonafide. That being so, the delay of 169 days is condoned. The instant interlocutory application, accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant