Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030001272026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/29/2026 Smt. Hmingchungnungi D/o Thuamliani R/o Chanmari-I Lunglei-796701 Lunglei District Mizoram. VERSUS Sh. H. Thangliana and 6 Ors. S/o Biakrawnsanga R/o Lunglawn-796701 Lunglei District Mizoram 2:Sh. Biakrawnsanga (Pasuia) S/o Khuanglinga (L) R/o Lunglawn - 796701 Lunglei District Mizoram 3:The Mizoram Rural Bank Lunglei Branch Lunglei Represented by its Branch Manager 4:The Chairman Chief Executive Officer Mizoram Rural Bank 5:The Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram 6:The Secretary Page No.# 2/4 Land Revenue and Settlement Department Government of Mizoram 7:The Settlement Officer Land Revenue and Settlement Department Lunglei District Lunglei Government of Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalfakawma Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram for R5-R7 Linked Case : RFA/29/2021 Smt. Hmingchungnungi Chanmari-I Lunglei VERSUS H. Thangliana and 4 Ors Lunglawn Lunglei Mizoram 2:Biakrawnsanga Lunglawn Lunglei 5:The Chief Secretary Govt of Mizoram Aizawl 6:The Secretary Land Revenue and Settlement Department Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 7:The Settlement Officer LR and settlement Department Lunglei Lunglei Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalfakawma Advocate for the Respondent : Mr C Zoramchhana (Addl.AG/GA Mizoram) for R5 Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 09.03.2026 Heard Ms. Lalropari, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Vanlalthlamuani, learned counsel, and Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of their respective Opposite Parties. 2. It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal; the respondent No. 2, who is the father of the respondent No. 1 in the connected appeal, has passed away on 04.09.2023. 3. By way of filing this application under Section XXII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicant is seeking substitution of the name of the respondent No. 2 in the connected appeal, by the applicant who is his son. 4. The prayer so made by the applicant, has not been objected to by the Opposite Parties. 5. In view of the above, the prayer is allowed. 6. Let the name of the respondent No. 2 viz. Shri Biakrawnsanga (Pasuia), be substituted by the respondent No. 1 viz. Shri H. Thangliana, S/o Biakrawnsanga (Pasuia), in the connected appeal. Page No.# 4/4 7. The interlocutory application accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant