Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030005972025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/6/2025 Sh. Vanlalngaia Ralte S/o Late R.C. Lalnuntluanga R/o Tanhril Aizawl VERSUS Smt. Vanlalsawmi W/o Late R.C. Lalmuanpuia R/o Tanhril Vengpui Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Zoramchhana Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Dinari T Azyu BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA O R D E R 31.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Victor L Ralte, learned counsel for the respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application for condoning the delay of 667 days in filing the appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Aizawl, dismissing RFA 11/2020. 3. The applicant's counsel submits that the subject matter in issue is with regard to inheritance of the land belonging to the applicant's grandfather. He submits that after the death of the applicant's grandfather, the wife of the younger son of his grandfather, i.e, the respondent herein, had applied for Heirship Certificate in respect of his grandfather's land. The learned Trial Court had granted Heirship Certificate to the respondent. The same was put to challenge by the applicant herein, who is the son of the elder son of his grandfather. However, the challenge to the grant of Heirship Certificate made by the applicant, vide RFA No. 11/2020, before the District Judge, Aizawl was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2023. 4. The applicant's counsel submits that there is a delay of 667 days in filing the appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2023 due to a mis-communication between the applicant's counsel and the applicant. The applicant's counsel submits that the applicant had requested the previous Counsel to file a second appeal against the impugned judgment and order. However, the same was not filed by his previous counsel and it was only on 15.05.2025 that the applicant came to learn that no appeal had been filed by his Counsel, when the respondent had told the applicant about the same. Further, as the applicant was posted at Khawzawl, which is a three-hour drive from Aizawl, he could not pursue the filing of the appeal with his previous Counsel. It was only on 15.07.2025 that the applicant could collect his brief from his previous Counsel and thereafter engage his present counsel on 17.07.2025 for Page No.# 3/4 filing the present appeal. 5. The applicant's counsel submits that the delay in filing the present appeal has been due to the negligence and fault of the applicant's previous Counsel, who did not file an appeal. He also submits that the grant of an Heirship Certificate to the wife of the younger son of his grandfather was a grave miscarriage of justice and due to which the delay should be condoned. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao & Others, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752. He has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives & Others vs. Union of India & Another, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531. 6. Mr. Victor L Ralte, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that the grandfather of the applicant, who was also the father-in-law of the respondent, had expired in the year 2014. The Heirship Certificate had been granted to the respondent on 01.11.2016. The father of the applicant, who was the brother-in-law of the respondent, did not make any challenge to the grant of Heirship Certificate to the respondent. Further, the father of the applicant had left the ancestral home and set up a separate house in another locality, while the respondent and her husband (younger brother of the applicant’s father) remained within the ancestral house, looking after the applicant’s grandfather. Further, the land is now in the name of the respondent’s son, who is the first cousin of the applicant. It was only after the death of the applicant's father in the year 2020 that the applicant has now claimed the property that had been devolved upon the respondent, by filing an appeal against the Heirship Certificate in the year 2020. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj & Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Page No.# 4/4 Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81, wherein it has been stated that sufficient cause should be given a liberal meaning to ensure that substantial justice is done, so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bonafide cannot be imputed to the party concerned. He has also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W. Rabisingh v. State of Manipur & Others, reported in (2012) 1 GLT435, wherein it has been held that it is a settled position of law that every wrong advice/negligence of the Counsel will not ipso- facto amount to sufficient cause entitling a party to take indulgence under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, more so when the alleged negligence is culpable in nature then the same cannot be treated as sufficient cause for the delay. 7. Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the counsel for the respondent has submitted that the property in question has now been mutated in the name of the younger son of the respondent, the applicant does not wish to press the application any longer, as the property has been passed down through the patriarchal line of the family. He accordingly prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the application. 8. The prayer of the applicant’s counsel is allowed. 9. The application is dismissed, as withdrawn. JUDGE Comparing Assistant