Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030005502025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/143/2025 The State of Mizoram R/b the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Public Works Department, Aizawl VERSUS Mrs Sapzingi and 5 Ors. R/o Nisapui Village, Kolasib District Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. C Lalfakzuala Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. C Lalhruaitluanga BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 03.09.2026 Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. S. Hmingthanmawia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By way of the present interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Order XLI Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 155 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib in L.A. Case No. 25/2015. Page No.# 2/3 3. By the impugned judgment and award dated 17.12.2024, the learned trial Court, inter alia, directed payment of enhanced compensation towards the value of the acquired land and loss of crops, together with the applicable multiplier, solatium and interest. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the connected appeal. 4. The applicant has explained the delay by setting out the various steps taken after receipt of the impugned judgment and award by the concerned authorities. It has been stated that the judgment was received in the personal branch of the Commissioner and Secretary, Public Works Department, only on 21.02.2025 and was thereafter forwarded to the concerned technical wing and the office of the Engineer- in-Chief. The matter was subsequently examined by the Legal Officer, followed by consultations and meetings amongst the concerned authorities, collection of relevant records from the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib, and consideration of the engagement of counsel for preferring the appeal. 5. It is further stated that the certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was obtained on 14.05.2025 and that, thereafter, the question of engagement of private counsel remained under consideration before the competent authorities. Approval for engagement of the present counsel was ultimately conveyed on 05.06.2025 and the same was communicated to counsel on 06.06.2025. Thereafter, the records in respect of the connected matters were examined, the grounds of appeal were prepared and the appeal papers, including the present application, were finalised. The applicant has also referred to the intervening court holidays and other holidays during the aforesaid period. 6. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor occasioned by any negligence or want of bona fides on the part of the applicant. He submits that the delay occurred in the course of administrative processing, examination of the matter, collection of records and obtaining the necessary approval for filing the appeal and engagement of counsel. Page No.# 3/3 He accordingly seeks condonation of the delay. 7. Mr. M. S. Hmingthanmawia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in his usual fairness, submits that he has received no instructions to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the explanation furnished in the application, this Court is of the view that the delay has been sufficiently explained. The explanation, when considered in its entirety, discloses that the matter remained under consideration at various levels of the concerned Department, involving examination of the impugned judgment, collection of records, obtaining the certified copy, consideration of the question of engagement of counsel and preparation of the appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant deliberately or negligently allowed the limitation to expire. 9. In the circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the applicant has been able to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, this Court is inclined to take a liberal view in the matter. Accordingly, the delay of 155 days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned. 10. The interlocutory application stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant