Sl. No. 20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(Mat.App.) No. 13 of 2025 Nongmeikapam Chaoba Devi Applicant Vs. Nongmeikapam Bungotombi Meitei and 2 (two) others Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ) 16.12.2025 [1] Captioned ‘miscellaneous case’ (‘MC’) has been filed with a condonation of delay (CoD) prayer qua 228 (two hundred twenty eight) days delay in filing an appeal assailing judgment and decree dated 11.11.2024 made in Mat. (Dec.) Suit No. 18 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court, Manipur at Lamphelpat, Imphal. This ‘suit’ shall be referred to as ‘said suit’ and the ‘court’ shall be referred to as ‘said Family Court’, both for the sake of convenience. [2] One Nongmeikapam Chaoba Devi filed said suit inter alia with a prayer for declaration that she is unmarried daughter of late Nongmeikapam Ranjit Meitei and late Nongmeikapam Pishakmacha Leima. Said suit, after full contest, was dismissed by said Family Court in and vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2024 (‘impugned judgment’ for the sake of convenience). SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2025.12.17 13:24:40 +05'30' [3] Assailing the impugned judgment, Nongmeikapam Chaoba Devi has preferred an appeal albeit with a delay of 228 (two hundred twenty eight) days and captioned MC as already alluded to supra has been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay. [4] Mr. S. Inaocha Meetei, learned counsel for appellant submits that the literacy level of the appellant is very low and she has managed to file with the appeal in this Court with help from her younger brother. This has caused delay is learned counsel say. [5] It is not necessary to dilate more on reasons much less delve into the reasons as Mr. S. Joychandra, learned counsel for all the respondents in the captioned MC (CoD application), very fairly submits, on instructions, that CoD prayer is not being opposed. This Court places on record its appreciation for the fair stand taken by learned counsel for respondents. [6] In the light of fair stand taken by the respondents and in any event, this Court being convinced about the reasons for delay as also how the appellant has been circumstanced, deems it appropriate to write that the captioned MC is allowed i.e., delay is condoned. [7] There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sushil