Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Meghalaya · body

2025 DAILYLAW 926 (MEG)

GEORGE M. LANONG v. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR.

MC(WA)/61/2025 · 2025-07-29

I P Mukerji, W Diengdoh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG MC(WA) No. 61 of 2025 Date of order: 29.07.2025 Shri George M. Lanong ….Applicant - versus - 1. The State of Meghalaya through the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Law, Meghalaya Civil Secretariat, Shillong, Meghalaya., Pin-793001 2. Md. Habib .…Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Applicant : Mr S. Chakrawarty, Sr Adv with Mr E. Laloo, Adv For the Respondents : Mr K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA Mr B. Deb, Adv There is a delay of 287 days in preferring the appeal. The principal ground made out in this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is that the wife of the Senior Advocate engaged by the appellant to prepare and conduct the appeal had to undergo a major open-heart surgery and for that reason drafting and filing of the appeal was delayed. It is not anybody’s case that the appellant was responsible for the delay. The Supreme Court has told us over the years by various decisions that a litigant does not benefit by delaying an appeal. In fact, he Serial No. 04 Daily List 2025:MLHC:650-DB runs a serious risk by doing so [see Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107]. Secondly, a litigant could not be made to suffer any consequence for which he was not responsible and the cause of the delay was his learned lawyer. “Sufficient cause” for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted so as to advance the cause of substantial justice [see State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others reported in (1972) 1 SCC 366] In this case, it was not delay caused by a casual attitude on the part of the learned lawyer. It has been stated on oath that a member of his family was suffering from a very serious illness which he had to attend to and for which the appeal could not be filed within time. We accept the explanation and condone the delay. We allow this application [MC(WA) No. 61 of 2025] under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We direct the Registry to register the appeal. (W. Diengdoh) (I.P. Mukerji) Judge Chief Justice 2025:MLHC:650-DB Digitally signed by SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH Date: 2025.07.29 18:19:39 IST