Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040001952025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/36/2025 Smti Dangtupsi Malo Wife of Late G Kri, resident of Village Dangtatam 32 Miles, PO and PS Tezu, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director of Land Management Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Lohit District Tezu Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Estate Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Airport authority of India Age: 0 Occupation : Tezu under the control of the Union of India Page No.# 2/3 Ministry of Civil Aviation Lohit District-Tezu Arunachal Pradesh represented by the General Manager/ Manager Officer in Charge Tezu Airport Advocate for the Petitioner : Sunil Mow, D Tatum,Tapi Nguki,Tado Siga,Madan Mili,Ebo Mili,Aruna Rai,Tenzin Chhoten,Chanya Bangsia,Sonam Tsomo,k N Maling,S R Rabha Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), DSGI,Marto Kato BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 20.05.2025 Heard Shri S. R. Rabha, learned counsel for the applicant, who has filed this interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1896 days in filing the connected Misc. Case, being MC(WP) No. 01(AP)/2025, for restoration of the original writ petition, being WP(C) No. 369(AP)/2017. The said writ petition was instituted against an order of eviction in which an interim order was also passed. However, it is submitted that due to serious ailment of the petitioner, she was not in a position to have contact with the concerned counsel and accordingly, when the said writ petition was taken up for consideration on 30.08.2019, this Court, after noticing that on earlier 3 (three) occasions also there were no representation, had dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. Shri Rabha, learned counsel for the applicant, has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph Nos. 3, 5 & 6 of the application Page No.# 3/3 including the Annexures pertaining to the medical treatment of the applicant. He has submitted that the applicant was not aware of the order of dismissal and thereafter because of her ailment, she could not take stock of the case and in the result, the delay had occasioned. Shri R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that the delay is of 1896 days, which is inordinate. However, he fairly submits that the applicant is an aged lady who is said to be suffering from serious ailment and therefore, he would not raise objection to the present application. It is well settled that an application praying for condonation of delay ought to be considered with a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach. In the instant case, the delay is however huge of 1896 days. To examine the cause of such delay, this Court has looked into the concerned pleadings and also the documents enclosed pertaining to the treatment of the applicant, which prima facie support the petitioner’s claim of serious ailments. This Court has also taken into consideration the cause of action involved in the original writ petition which pertains to eviction. Considering the above and taking a lenient view, the delay of 1896 days in filing the restoration application is condoned. The interlocutory application accordingly stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant