Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040017382025 2026:GAU-AP:769 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : IA(C)/256/2025 Tagung Mize Son of Late Tadu Mize, resident of Rani village, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh represented through POA holder Mr Adipson Mize VERSUS Tagom Mibang and Anr Son of Late Tater Mibang, resident of Rani Village, PO and PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 791102 2:Midum Megu Age: 41 Occupation : Son of Mr Bharat Megu resident of Mirbuk Village PO and PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 791102 Advocate for the Petitioner : Gallen Taloh, Advocate for the Respondent : H K Jamoh, Jumgam Jini,Wanglak Wangsa,Moni Bori,Eddie Payeng :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG Advocate for the appellant : Mr. A. Taloh Advocates for the respondents: Mr. T. Nega Mr. H. K. Jamoh Date on which judgment was reserved: 29.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 12.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : YES Page No.# 2/5 JUDGMENT & ORDER[CAV] Heard Mr. A. Taloh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. Also heard Mr. Taying Negal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1; and Mr. H. K. Jamoh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 490 days in filing the accompanying civil revision petition against the judgment & order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Pasighat, in Civil Kebang Appeal being Civil (Kebang) Appeal No. 09/2023. 3. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that vide judgment & order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pasighat, in Civil(Kebang) Appeal No. 09/2023, the Kebang decision dated 27.08.2019 and 04.07.2019 has been affirmed. 4. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred the present civil revision petition. However, there has been a delay of 490 days in filing the present civil revision petition. 5. The grounds for delay in filing the present civil revision petition are explained as under: (i). That, immediately after the judgment & order, dated 11.06.2024, the petitioner filed a Review Petition being Review Petition No. 02/2024 on 03.07.2024, which came to be dismissed on 07.01.2025. Page No.# 3/5 (ii). Thereafter, under a bona fide belief and due to the limited legal knowledge, the applicant preferred a 2nd Civil(Kebang) Appeal being Civil(Kebang) Appeal No. 02/2025 before the learned District Court, Pasighat, on 04.02.2025, which also came to be dismissed on 09.09.2025 as non-maintainable. (iii). That, after the dismissal of the said appeal, the applicant applied for the certified copy of the order dated 09.09.2025 which was made available only on 07.10.2025, and thereafter, the present civil revision petition was prepared and filed on 14.10.2025 without any further delay. 6. It is contended that although the total calendar period w.e.f. 11.06.2024 upto 14.10.2025, is about 490 days, however, the applicant has contended that he was continuously pursuing the remedies before the competent or wrong forums. Hence, by virtue of sections 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period spent during:- (a). pendency of review petition; (b). pendency of the wrong appeal; and (c). waiting for the certified copy of the order dated 09.09.2025; is liable to be excluded. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, prays for exclusion of the above-noted periods and it is contended that if the time spent for pursuing the review petition, appeal before the wrong forum and waiting for the certified copies of the order dated 09.09.2025, totalling upto 433 days, are excluded from 490 days; the net delay would be only 57 days which according to the applicant, was neither intentional nor deliberate but the same was caused by bona fide reasons and continuous prosecution of remedies. 8. The applicant further explained the delay by stating that after the judgment & Page No.# 4/5 order, dated 11.06.2024, he promptly preferred the Review Petition No. 02/2024 which was dismissed on 07.01.2025. Thereafter, under a bona fide but mistaken understanding of the appropriate remedy, the applicant preferred a Civil(Kebang) Appeal being Civil(Kebang) Appeal No. 02/2025 before the learned District Court, Pasighat, which was also dismissed as non-maintainable on 09.09.2025. The certified copy of the said order dated 09.09.2025 was, thereafter, received on 07.10.2025 and the present civil revision petition was, accordingly, filed on 14.10.2025 without any further delay. 9. The respondent No. 2 opposed the instant interlocutory application by filing an affidavit-in-opposition mainly on the ground that the applicant has failed to show sufficient cause and has failed to explain the day-to-day delay in filing the connected civil revision petition. The learned counsel also submitted that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, cannot be invoked in respect of the review petition being Review Petition No. 02/2024 and the proceedings before the wrong forum. 10. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the documents available on record. 11. It is true that the period mentioned by the applicant cannot mechanically be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court is required to examine the overall conduct of the applicant and it is to examine whether the delay was occasioned by bona fide pursuit or a remedy, or, by a deliberate action on the part of the applicant. 12. In the present case, the applicant has demonstrated that he continuously pursued the legal remedies and after dismissal of the proceedings before the Page No.# 5/5 District Court, Pasighat, he approached this Court without any further delay. Further, there is no material to suggest deliberate negligence on the part of the applicant or lack of bona fides. 13. The mistake in the prayer regarding the number of days of delay, has also been clarified by the applicant by filing an additional affidavit, wherein, it is contended that the delay sought to be condoned, has always been 490 days, and that the mention of 57 days in the prayer portion of this interlocutory application was intended only to refer to the last segment of the delay during which the applicant was continuously pursuing the matter and taking steps for approaching the Court. The same stand explained and does not affect the substance of the application. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has been able to satisfy and he had a sufficient cause for not filing the connected civil revision petition within the stipulated time and in the interest of substantial justice, sufficient cause is made-out by the applicant condoning the delay. 15. Accordingly, the delay of 490 days in filing the accompanying civil revision petition is hereby condoned. 16. The interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of in terms above. 17. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the connected civil revision petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant