Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030005152025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/130/2025 Sumitra Devi and 2 Ors. W/o Ajay Lohra (L), R/o Jamira, Roll Latehar, Jharkhand VERSUS The New India Asurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Large Corporate and Brokers Office, 7C, 7th Floor, Surya Towers, S.P.Road Secunderabad-500003 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalfakzuala Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 19.05.2026 Heard Mr. C Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Lalropari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. As per the affidavit of service filed on 16.03.2026, service upon respondent No. 2 stands duly effected through dasti mode. By way of the present interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicants seek condonation of a delay of 21 days in preferring the connected appeal Page No.# 2/3 against the judgment and order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Aizawl in E.C. Case No. 10/2023. The explanation furnished in support of the delay discloses that the applicants became aware of the impugned judgment only on 21.05.2025 upon being informed by their previous counsel. Thereafter, some time was consumed in understanding the implications of the decision, deliberating upon the course of action to be adopted, and making arrangements to prefer an appeal before this Court. The applicants, being residents of Jharkhand and claiming financial hardship, have also explained the logistical difficulties encountered in engaging counsel at the appellate stage, obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment, executing the necessary power of attorney, and ensuring submission of requisite documents through their authorized representative. The intervening summer vacation of the Court has also been cited as a contributing circumstance. Mr. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence, but occasioned by bona fide circumstances beyond the applicants’ immediate control. Ms. Lalropari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, fairly submits that she has received no instructions to oppose the prayer for condonation. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the explanation furnished, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of the delay. The explanation offered does not disclose any deliberate inaction or mala fide intent, and the delay, being relatively short, deserves to be viewed with a justice-oriented approach so that the matter may be adjudicated on merits rather than being non-suited on technical grounds. Accordingly, the delay of 21 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. Page No.# 3/3 JUDGE Comparing Assistant