Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030002142025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/56/2025 Sh. C. Lalnunpuia S/o Vanlalthlana, R/o Govt. Complex, Aizawl VERSUS The State of Mizoram and 5 Ors Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl, Mizoram 2:The Secretary to the Government of Mizoram 3:The Director 4:The Settlement Officer 5:Sh. Samuel Lalrohlua 6:Smt. Rinmawi Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, Sr.Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1-R4 Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 16.06.2026 Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsaami, learned Government Advocate for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4; and Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 5. 2. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is preferred by the applicant for condoning the delay of 396 days in preferring the connected appeal against the order dated 08.12.2023, passed by the learned District Judge, Aizawl, in RFA No. 7/2022, arising out of Civil Suit No. 77/2018. 3. Mr. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that due to inadvertence, the applicant had filed one civil revision petition before this Court on 28.03.2024, against the order dated 08.12.2023, passed by the learned District Judge, Aizawl, in RFA No. 7/2022, arising out of Civil Suit No. 77/2018, but the same was withdrawn on 07.04.2025, and thereafter, he preferred the connected appeal against the order dated 08.12.2023. Mr. Lianhrima also submits that in pursuing the matter before this Court as civil revision petition under the bona fide belief, the applicant has spent 396 days and that the same is not intentional, rather it was circumstantial and as such, the applicant is entitled to benefit of exclusion of the said period. And as such, the delay has sufficiently been explained in this application, and therefore, he has contended to condone the same. 4. Per contra, Mr. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 5 Page No.# 3/3 has opposed the application. He submits that the civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 5. The submissions, so advanced by learned counsel for both the parties have received due consideration of this Court. It is not in dispute that the time of 396 days was spent in pursuing the civil revision petition under the bona fide impression that the civil revision petition is maintainable. But, it is well settled in a catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court that when alternative remedy is available, a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not at all maintainable. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors. vs. Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538, and also to Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423. 6. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances on the record, and also considering the explanation so forthcoming for the delay of 396 days in preferring the connected appeal, this Court is of the view that the delay has sufficiently been explained. Accordingly, the delay of 396 days stands condoned. 7. In view of the order passed in this application, now the Registry shall proceed to register the connected appeal and the list the same before the Court as soon as practicable, preferably within a week from today. 8. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant