Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030007882025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/142/2025 Sh. Ngurdailova and 2 Ors. S/o Vanlalnghaka, R/o Chawnpui, Aizawl 2: Sh. Vanlalliana 3: Sh. Lalremlian VERSUS The State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 4 Ors. Land Revenue and Settlement Department, Aizawl, New Secretariat Complex, Mizoram 796001 2:The Director Land Revenue and Settlement Department Govt. of Mizoram 3:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram PWD Aizawl 4:The engineer-in-Chief PWD 5:Sh. C. Zarzolian Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R 1-4 Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 04-06-2026 Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Addl. Advocate General for respondent No. 1 - 4 and Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. The writ petitioner has put to challenge the Order dated 26.02.2020 passed in Eviction Suit No. 4/2019 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl District, Aizawl. It is stated at the bar that the same order had been put to challenge initially before the Court of District Judge vide RFA No. 20/2020. However, the learned District Judge, Aizawl rejected the same on the ground that he did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the writ petitioner filed a Regular First Appeal against the said impugned Order dated 26.02.2020 in Eviction Suit No. 4/2019 in the High Court, vide RFA No. 27/2025 along with a condonation of delay application, i.e. I.A. (Civil) No. 112/2025, wherein condonation of delay of 1883 days was prayed for under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The I.A.(Civil) No. 112/2025 was dismissed vide Order dated 24.10.2025, by holding that the applicant had not been able to show sufficient cause for the delay of 1883 days. 3. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the same impugned Order dated 26.02.2020, passed in Eviction Suit No. 4/2019 and submits that the validity of the above impugned order can be gone into, as there had been a fraud played by the private respondents. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the Page No.# 3/4 judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Vardhan alias Vishnu Pradhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501. 4. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, on the other hand, submits that the present writ petition should be dismissed as judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this respect, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. As can be seen from the facts enumerated above, the petitioner is putting to challenge a judicial order of a Civil Court, which had been dismissed by the Appellate Court on grounds of delay, by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. In the case of Vishnu Vardhan alias Vishnu Pradhan (Supra), the Supreme Court held that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. This Court does not deny that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on this Court. However, the issue of fraud being played would have to be considered in an appropriate proceeding. Further, the issue of whether a fraud had been played or not is not the issue in the present case. The preliminary issue to be decided in this case, is whether the impugned judicial order of the Civil Court can be put to challenge in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. (Supra), the Supreme Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. Para 27 of the Page No.# 4/4 said judgment is reproduced herein below as follows:- “27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226.” 8. In view of the above facts and the fact that the issue of eviction is between the petitioner and the private respondents, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant