Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030006082025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/161/2025 Rintluanga and 120 Ors. Dinthar Veng VERSUS State of Mizoram and 4 Ors. R/b Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalsawirema Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 24.11.2025 Heard Mr. Lalsawirema, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Lalnunhpui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents. By way of this application, the applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 170 days in preferring the connected L.A. App. No. 16/2025 against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, District- Kolasib, Mizoram in L.A. Case No. 40/2015. It appears that though the impugned judgment and order under appeal in the accompanying L.A. App. No. 16/2025 was delivered on 17.12.2024, however, copy of the said judgment and order was delivered to the applicants on 12.06.2025. It further appears that thereafter, the applicants filed the accompanying appeal on 03.09.2025. It further appears that thereafter there was a District Courts holiday in between 05.07.2025 and 13.07.2025. It further appears that in the meantime the applicants being collectively large in numbers and since most of the land owners are available only on Sunday, it took almost 30 days to consult amongst them for taking further recourse against the impugned judgment and order. It further appears that after deciding to file appeal, further time was taken in collecting documents and filing the accompanying appeal. It further appears that due to the applicants’ counsel frequently being out of Station for medical treatment since May, 2025 at International Institute of Cardiac Science at Kolkata, there was further delay in finally preferring the appeal, for which ultimately delay of 170 days had occurred. Ms. Lalnunhpui, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that she does not have any instruction to oppose to the prayer for condonation of delay, however, Page No.# 3/3 she has instruction to file written objection to the connected appeal memo. Having considered the grounds of delay and having heard the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that the applicants have sufficiently explained the delay. Hence, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate to condone the delay of 170 days in preferring the accompanying appeal. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant