Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040006102024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/78/2024 in MAT.Appl./01/2024 Habu Talik Son of Shri Habu Taker, resident of Aniya colony, Near Post Office, Nirjuli, PO and PS Nirjuli, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Likha Kunu Daughter of Shri Likha Tadh, resident of Village Kuchkutch, PO and PS Yazali, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh presently residing at Rono Hill, Doimukh, PO and PS Doimukh, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Teto Taba, Advocate for the Respondent : Dilip Saikia, Toko Rini,Taku Pumbo,Oyam Binggep BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 19-05-2025 Heard Mr. T. Taba, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning Page No.# 2/4 the delay of 663 (Six Hundred Sixty-Three) days in preferring the connected appeal. 3. The grounds for delay in preferring the connected appeal has been explained in paragraph – 5 of the Interlocutory Application. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Title Suit (Divorce) No. 13/2021 proceeded ex-parte based on the tracking consignment, dated 09.10.2021 produced before the learned Trial Court. However, on perusal, the said consignment only shows “item dispatched”. It is submitted that “item dispatched” is not equivalent to item delivered. As such, the notice was never received by the applicant. And he had no knowledge about the proceeding of the case. However, the learned Court proceeded and the suit was decreed ex-parte in absence of the respondent/applicant on 20.04.2022. 5. It is stated that the granting of divorce on 20.04.2022 came to the knowledge of the applicant thorough his relatives only on 20.02.2024. Thereafter, immediately on 21.02.2024, the applicant engaged an Advocate to verify the details and obtain the documents from the Trial Court on 27.02.2024 with a view to file an appeal. The engaged Advocate, thereafter, obtained the certified copy of the judgment on 28.02.2024 and subsequently handed over the same to the applicant on 02.03.2024. The applicant then instructed the engaged counsel to prefer appeal against the impugned judgment before the High Court. However, the certified copy of the entire order sheet and the judgment were obtained on 09.05.2024 and on the next date i.e. on 10.05.2024, the Appeal was filed. Thus, in the process, there has been a delay of 663 (Six Hundred and Sixty-Three) days in preferring the connected appeal. Accordingly, it is submitted that there was no negligence or laches on the part of the applicant to file the appeal. The delay, if any, was not Page No.# 3/4 deliberate and it was beyond his control. Hence, prays for condonation of the delay. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent, while referring to the objection filed by the respondent, submits that first step was taken on 22.09.2021 and the second step was taken on 30.09.2021, and based on the Tracking Report, the Court presumed that notice has been served and proceeded ex-parte and passed the judgment on 20.04.2022. He further submits that there was a delay of 754 (Seven Hundred Fifty-Four) days and not 663 (Six Hundred and Sixty-Three) days, as stated by the applicant. 7. I have heard both the learned counsels for the parties. I have also perused and considered the ground explained for delay in preferring the connected appeal and seeking condonation of delay of 663 (Six Hundred and Sixty-Three) days. 8. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that there is no clear evidence showing that the notice was served upon the respondent/applicant herein as the postal address of the respondent itself is not clear. The tracking records which is annexed also shows that the consignment was dispatched, but there is no record of delivery of consignment. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant was prevented by a sufficient cause in not preferring the connected appeal within the stipulated time. 10. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the delay of 663 (Six Hundred and Sixty-Three) days or 754 (Seven Hundred Fifty-Four) days in preferring the connected appeal is, hereby, condoned. 11. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. Page No.# 4/4 12. Since, the connected matrimonial appeal has already been registered, the same shall be listed after 1 (one) week. JUDGE Comparing Assistant