Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030008042024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/210/2024 Smt. Lalvenpuii M/o Lalhlimpuia (L), R/o Bawngkawn S, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Sh. R. Zonuntluanga and 4 Ors. S/o Rualchhinga, R/o Bawngkawn S, Aizawl, Mizoram 2:The State of Mizoram 3:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram 4:The Superintendent of Police 5:The Officer-in-Charg Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms C Lalrinpuii Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R2-R5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 30.10.2025 Heard Ms. C. Lalrinpuii, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent Nos. 2 – 5. Page No.# 2/3 2. The office note dated 04.07.2025, indicates that the respondent/opposite party No. 1 suffered demise. 2.1. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that she has contacted the daughter of the respondent No. 1, but she is not willing to pursue the matter and therefore, she submits that the name of the respondent/opposite party No. 1 may be struck off from the array of the respondents/opposite parties of this IA. 3. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, it is provided that the name of the respondent/opposite party No. 1 be struck off from the array of the respondents/opposite parties of this IA, at the cost and risk of the applicant. 4. It is to be noted here that this application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant for condoning the delay of 138 days in preferring the connected regular first appeal, against the order dated 29.04.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divison) No. 1, Aizawl (trial court hereinafter), in Civil Suit No. 24/2020. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was delay in obtaining the certified copy of the order from the learned trial court and also the counsel, who was engaged by the applicant, was busy in preparing to appear in the Grade – I examination of Mizoram Judicial Services, for which, he could not attend the matter and subsequently, another counsel was engaged in his place and only thereafter the appeal could be prepared and till the time of filing the same, the delay of 138 days already occurred. 5.1. 5.1. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and the same has sufficiently been Page No.# 3/3 explained in this application in paragraph Nos. 2 – 5 and therefore, it is contended to allow this application by condoning the delay of 138 days. 6. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent Nos. 2 – 5 submits that the Civil Suit No. 24/2020, was dismissed by the learned trial court on the ground of delay and that there is no merit in the appeal and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the application. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the application as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the averments and statements made in paragraph Nos. 2 – 5 of the application. 8. It appears that the delay of 138 days, that occurred in preferring the regular first appeal, has sufficiently been explained in this application and the same is not willful and deliberate, rather circumstantial. 9. Under such circumstances, this court is inclined to allow this application and accordingly, the delay of 138 days in filing the connected regular first appeal, stands condoned. 10. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant