Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030005562025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/146/2025 State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary to the Govt of Mizoram, Public Works Department Aizawl VERSUS Sh. David Lalnunfela and 11 Ors. S/o Chhunkunga R/o Thingthelh Village, Kolasib District 2:Sh. F. Lalbiakvela 3:Sh. Thanmawia 4:Sh. Chhunkunga 5:Sh. Vanlalthlana 6:Sh. Thanmawia 7:Sh Thanmawia 8:Sh Biakvela 9:Salvation Army (Hall) 10:Sh. R Thansanga Page No.# 2/4 11:Sh Chhunkunga 12:Sh. Ramdintluang 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. 28/2015. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the applicant has preferred the connected appeal. However, as there is a delay of 155 days in approaching this Court, the present application has been filed seeking condonation thereof. 4. The applicant has, in substance, explained the delay by stating that the impugned judgment and award was received in the personal branch of the Commissioner and Secretary, PWD only on 21.02.2025, whereafter it was forwarded to the Technical Branch of the PWD and, in turn, to the office of the Engineer-in- Chief on 27.02.2025. It is further stated that, following a change in the incumbent Engineer-in-Chief on 28.02.2025, the matter was taken up on 03.03.2025 and was Page No.# 3/4 thereafter examined by the Legal Officer. Various steps were subsequently taken for obtaining relevant records and documents, convening meetings with the concerned officials, obtaining a certified copy of the judgment and award, and taking a decision regarding engagement of counsel for preferring the appeal. 5. It is further stated that approval for engagement of the present counsel was conveyed on 05.06.2025 and communicated to the counsel on 06.06.2025. Thereafter, the connected matters relating to the Serkhan-Bagha road were examined and the appeal as well as the present application for condonation of delay were prepared. The applicant has also referred to the intervening court vacations and holidays during the relevant period. 6. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor occasioned by any wilful negligence on the part of the applicant. He submits that the delay has occurred in the course of obtaining the necessary records, taking administrative decisions and completing the formalities required for preferring the appeal, and that the applicant has acted bona fide throughout. He accordingly prays that the delay be condoned. 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 averments made in the application, this Court finds that the applicant has furnished a reasonably detailed account of the steps taken between the receipt of the judgment and award and the eventual filing of the appeal. The delay, particularly in the present case involving a Government department, has to be considered in the context of the administrative process involved in obtaining the relevant records, examining the judgment and award, taking a decision to prefer an appeal, obtaining Page No.# 4/4 approval for engagement of counsel and thereafter preparing the appeal. 9. At the same time, the fact that the applicant is a Government department by itself cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the explanation furnished, taken cumulatively, does not indicate any deliberate or mala fide inaction on the part of the applicant. The intervening court vacations and holidays, though by themselves would not constitute sufficient explanation for the entire period of delay, are also relevant circumstances in assessing the chronology placed before the Court. 10. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay of 155 days in preferring the connected appeal. The applicant ought not to be non-suited at the threshold when the delay has been sufficiently explained and the respondent has not opposed the prayer for condonation. 11. Accordingly, the delay of 155 days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned. 12. The interlocutory application stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant