Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020000502025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/11/2025 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIMAPUR DIVISIONAL OFFICE DIMAPUR,NAGALAND VERSUS SMTI PRABHANJALI KALITA AND ANR W/O MAHIDRA KALITA R/O C/O IMSEN JAMIR MOKOKCHUNG TOWN PO AND PS MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND 2:SHRI DEBABRATA DAS S/O TILESWAR DAS VILLAGE GHARMARA PO GHARMARA PS NORTH- LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM-787001 (OWNER CUM DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO AS-07-L/0798 Advocate for the Petitioner : ANJANA MODI, Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : MACApp./1/2025 Page No.# 2/4 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIMAPUR DIVISIONAL OFFICE CHURCH ROAD DIMAPUR-797112 VERSUS SMTI PRABHANJALI KALITA AND ANR W/O MAHIDRA KALITA R/O C/O IMSEN JAMIR MOKOKCHUNG TOWN PO AND PS MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 2:SHRI DEBABRATA DAS S/O TILESWAR DAS VILLAGE GHARMARA PO GHARMARA PS NORTH- LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM-787001 (OWNER CUM DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO AS-07-L/0798) ------------ Advocate for : ANJANA MODI Advocate for : B. N. SARMAH appearing for SMTI PRABHANJALI KALITA AND ANR BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 18-05-2026 The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been preferred by the applicant praying for condonation of delay of 25 (twenty-five) days in filing the connected appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 25.09.2024 in MAC Case No. 15/2022, passed by the learned MACT, Mokokchung, Nagaland. Page No.# 3/4 2. The notices on all the respondents are complete and R-1 has also filed an objection affidavit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Z. Kulnu. The reason for the delay has been set out at paragraph no. 7 of the application, which is reproduced as under: “The authorized signatory of the company who is stationed at Guwahati, dispatched the documents to its Divisional office at Dimapur, after due signature on the 9th of January which was well within time but due to postal delay which might be due to Bihu holidays in Assam, the same was received at Dimapur Divisional office very late. The dealing advocate was informed about the documents on 21st January, at which time the dealing advocate was out of station and could not take steps for filing within time. The delay is not intentional but due to unavoidable circumstances. The appellant could not file the Appeal within time despite due diligence. As such, it is a fit case where the Hon’ble court may consider the facts and hear the appeal on merits after condoning the delay of 25 days.” 4. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Imtiwapang, by filing the objection, has stated that the actual delay should be 121 (one-hundred one) days and not 25 days. He has further submitted that the actual delay of 121 days has not been explained by the applicant. The learned counsel also submits that the applicant has not produced any evidence of the postal delay, such as, tracking number or postal receipt, and no explanation as to when the documents were finally handed over to the postal department for delivery. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the instant application may be dismissed. 5. The Court has considered the application and has also heard the learned counsels for the parties. This Court is of the view that the instant appeal needs to be heard on merit and that the technicalities should not Page No.# 4/4 get in the way of hearing the appeal on merit unless the delay is willful and negligent. Accordingly, the delay of 25 days in filing the connected MACApp./1/2025 is condoned and the application is allowed. 6. I.A. stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant