Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040013522024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/46/2024 Chakpu Tami and 2 Ors Son of Late Chakpu Epo, Village Mariangha, PO Damin, PS Koloriang, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Chakpu Simi Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Chakpu Hache Village Mariangha PO Damin PS Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Chakpu John Age: Occupation : Son of Late Chakpu Bonghi Village Mariangha PO Damin PS Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Chakpu Roi and Anr Son of Late Chakpu Tasa, Village Mariangha, PO Damin, PS Koloriang, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:Chakpu Taghik Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Chakpu tala Village Mariangha PO Damin PS Koloriang Page No.# 2/3 Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Pondit Ronya,Kirmani Lollen,Taba Tokur,Terji Kamchi,Jumgam Jini Advocate for the Respondent : Tania Kipa, T Nima BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 07.04.2025 Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Tanya, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In course of deliberations, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents and it is submitted that during the pendency of this CRP, it has come to his notice from the affidavit-in-opposition that on 10.10.2024, a Mel judgment as per the customary law passed, which is available in page-60 of the affidavit-in- opposition. 3. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the said Mel judgment dated 10.10.2024 is not impugned in this CRP, therefore, he seeks liberty to withdraw this CRP so as to make consolidated challenge to the notice impugned in this CRP as well as to assail Mel judgment dated 10.10.2024. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, though has not objected to the prayer made, but it has been submitted that the Mel judgment dated 10.10.2024 can otherwise be assailed by filing statutory appeal under section 15(3) and 15(4) of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as he is Page No.# 3/3 withdrawing the present application with leave, it may be ordered that the limitation would not be a bar for entertaining of the consolidated challenge. 6. The Court is of the considered opinion that as far as the issue of limitation is concerned, although this Court would refrain from extending the period of limitation, but it is always open for the petitioners to explain the delay while approaching the Court, which would be an explanation within the meaning of section 14 of the Limitation Act. 7. Accordingly, this CRP stands dismissed on withdrawal with liberty to the petitioners to avail such remedy against the notice impugned in this application as well as in respect of the Mel judgment dated 10.10.2024, in such manner as they may be so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant