Page No.# 1/11 GAHC030006172024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/169/2024 Sh. C. Lalhmachhuana S/o C.Kapthanga(L) R/o Luangmual Vengchhak, Aizawl VERSUS The State of Mizoram through the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 12 Ors. Aizawl2:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Department Aizawl 3:The Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Department Aizawl 4:The Director Land Revenue and Settlement Department Aizawl 5:The Deputy Director of Survey land Revenue and Settlement Department Aizawl 6:The Settlement Officer Land Revenue and Settlement Department Aizawl District Aizawl 7:Sh Zohmingliana S/o Lalruata Ralte R/o Mission Veng Aizawl Page No.# 2/11 8:Smt. Lalrinawmi W/o Zohmingliana R/o Mission Veng Aizawl 9:Sh. Lalduhawma S/o Lalruata Ralte(L) R/o Mission Veng Aizawl 10:Sh. B.Lalramenga S/o Sangliana R/o Zotlang Aizawl 11:Smt. Lalmuanzeli D/o Zohmingliana R/o Mission Veng Aizawl 12:Sh. Lalthankima S/o Zoliana(L) R/o Mission Veng Aizawl 13:Ms. Lalthianghlimi D/o B Vanlalduha R/o Luangmual Aizaw Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr F Lalengliana Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Dinari T Azyu for R10 Linked Case : FAO/6/2024 Sh. C.Lalhmachhuana S/o C.Kapthanga(L) R/o Luangmual Vengchhak Aizawl VERSUS The State of Mizoram through the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 12 Page No.# 3/11 Ors. Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr F Lalengliana Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Dinari T Azyu for R10 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 01.07.2025 Heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the OP/respondent No. 10, Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for Private Respondent Nos. 7, 8 , 9, 11, 12 & 13 and Mrs. Caroline K. Lungawipui, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents Nos. 1 to 6. 2. The present application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act R/w Order 41, Rule 3(A) CPC is for the condonation of a delay of 311 days in preferring an appeal against the impugned Order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-IV, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 25/2016 wherein, the learned Trial Court had passed the impugned order rejecting the plaint at the time of hearing on maintainability on the ground of it being ‘barred by Limitation’ and ‘want of locus standi’ and was rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule Page No.# 4/11 11 CPC. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that there is sufficient cause for allowing the condonation of delay of 311 days in filing the appeal against the impugned Order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) – IV in Civil Suit No. 25/2016 by submitting that the impugned Order dated 23.08.2023, was not intimated him by his counsel till 30.05.2024 and therefore, the applicant had no knowledge of the impugned order. Being aggrieved, for not being promptly inform, the applicant had engaged the present counsel and a certified copy of the order was applied on 05.06.2024, and the same was issued to the applicant on 18.06.2024. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the connected files was kept with the earlier counsel and was not be handed over to the applicant till the month of August 2024, once the same was handed over, the present counsel got busy drafting the appeal petition from 06.09.2024 till 17.09.2024. Time was also taken for re-typing the annexures and preparing the photocopy of the petition and therefore, the appeal was ready for filing only on 27.09.2024, after a delay of 311 days i.e. from 24.11.2023 till 27.09.2024, by deducting 90 days of the appeal period. Page No.# 5/11 The learned counsel has also filed an additional affidavit showing the Register maintained by the District Court wherein, the copy of the impugned Order dated 23.08.2023, was not sent to the applicant but was furnished to the then counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that sufficient cause has been made out since the delay is due to the previous counsel of the applicant, who had not taken the trouble to informed the applicant to the impugned Order dated 23.08.2023. In support of his submission he has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mool Chandra Vs Union of India reported in 2025 1 SCC 625 (Para 20) & Basawaraj & Anr. Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2013 14 SCC 81. The learned counsel had also relied in the Order of this Court in I.A. (Civil) No. 134/2023 dated 21.01.2025, wherein, this court had condoned the delay of 485 days in filing the appeal. 5. Per Contra, Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for respondent No. 10 submits that the applicant was not diligent towards looking after his case, since he had not taken the trouble to enquire about the status of his case from his previous counsel for more than 9 months wherein, the applicant Page No.# 6/11 should be vigilant during the proceedings of the Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the reason given, that he was not informed by his previous counsel about the impugned Order dated 23.08.2023 till 30.05.2024 is made in a very casual manner without even mentioning the name of his previous counsel. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has also led this court to the order sheet of the learned trial court. A copy of which is filed in the written objection of the respondent Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 13 wherein, a perusal of the copy of the order sheet shows that the applicant continued to be represented by his counsel after the issuance of the impugned Order dated 23.08.2023 since after the dismissal of the plaint, the learned trial court had continued to hear on the maintainability of the counter claim filed the present OP’s in the Civil Suit No. 25/2016. He further submitted that the applicant can always file written statement of the evidence while consideration of the counter claim so filed. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant further submit that on the perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that the applicant was represented by his counsel on 15.05.2024 wherein, he had submitted that the plaintiff/present applicant had retrieved the file from him and he had to Page No.# 7/11 ascertain as to where they will continued to appear on behalf of the plaintiff/present applicant or not. Thus, the trial Court had issued summons to the plaintiff to show cause as to why the suit was not be proceeded and has fixed 10.06.2024 for cross examination of PW-1 of the counter claimant. Thereafter, the order sheet reflects that on 10.06.2024, the counsels for both the parties were present. The learned counsel submits that this is contrary to the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, that he got to know about the impugned Order dated 23.08.2023 only on 30.05.2024 and that his earlier counsel did not hand over the applicant the connected file still the month of August, 2024. He thus submits that the instant application for condonation of delay is liable to be set aside for making false/wrong statement in the condonation application. In support of his submission, the learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer reported in 2008 17 SCC 448. He has also relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2013 14 SCC 81 (para 11- 15) and the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of W. Rabi Singh Vs. State of Manipur reported in 2012 1 GLT 435 Page No.# 8/11 wherein, the Court had observed that though the delay was said to be due to the default of the lawyer, however, the name of the lawyer was not mentioned and also wherein the litigant was not vigilant in the case and party cannot be fully relieved from his duties and obligations in the matter. 7. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 13 submits that he will be adopting the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 10. He also submits that the applicant was much aware of the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 which is clear from the copy of the charge sheet of the learned Trial Court, wherein the learned Trial Court had observed that the then counsel for the plaintiff/present applicant had submitted before the Court that he did not know whether he was going to still represent the plaintiff/applicant since the files were handed over to the plaintiff/applicant. It is also seen that the learned Trial Court accordingly had issued notice to the plaintiff/applicant to ascertain whether the then counsel was still going to represent him or not. The learned counsel thus submits that the applicant cannot blame his then counsel whose name has also not been mentioned for the delay of 311 days in filing the connected appeal and that no sufficient cause has been made out by the applicant. Page No.# 9/11 8. Mrs. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Government Advocate submits that she will be adopting the submissions made by the learned counsels for the private parties and further submits that no sufficient cause has been made out by the applicant for the delay of 311 days in filing the connected appeal. 9. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties. 10. It is seen that though the learned counsel has put the blame on his previous counsel for the delay of 311 days in filing the connected appeal against the order dated 23.08.2023 in Civil Suit No. 25/2016, however, there is no mention of the name of the previous counsel nor are there any documents showing the same. It is however seen in the order sheet of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court had observed in its order dated 15.05.2024 that the learned counsel for the plaintiff had submitted that he had handed over all the files to the plaintiff and that he did not know whether he would be still representing the plaintiff. This is in contradiction with the reason given for the delay by the applicant,wherein he had stated that he got to know about the impugned order only on 30.05.2024 and that the said previous counsel had handed over the files to Page No.# 10/11 the applicant only in the month of August, 2024. It is seen that the Apex court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (Supra) held that at para 12 as follows:- “In our considered opinion, incorrect statement made in the application seeking condonation of delay itself is sufficient to reject the application without any further inquiry as to whether the averments made in the application reveal sufficient cause to condone the delay. That a party taking a false stand to get rid of the bar of limitation should not be encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on its part by condoning delay.” It is also seen that the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 15.05.2024 had also issued notice to the plaintiff/applicant to show cause as to why the suit should not proceed in his absence. This Court also finds that it is the duty of the applicant to be more vigilant in his case, wherein the impugned order is dated 23.08.2023 and he claims that he got to know about the order only on 30.05.2024 which itself is found not to be as per the order sheet of the learned Trial Court. 11. For the above reasons, this Court is constrained to hold that the applicant has failed to make out sufficient cause for the delay of 311 days in Page No.# 11/11 filing the connected appeal against the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 in Civil Suit No. 25/2016. 12. Accordingly, I.A.(Civil) No. 169/2024 stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant