Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030001272026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/48/2026 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 Lunglawm - 796701, Lunglei District, Mizoram 2:Sh. Biakrawnsanga (Pasuia) 3:The Mizoram Rural Bank 4:The Chairman/Chief Executive Officer 5:The Chief Secretary 6:The Secretary 7:The Settlement Office Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalfakawma Advocate for the Respondent : Mr A.R. Malhotra for R1 & R2 Linked Case : RFA/29/2021 Smt. Hmingchungnungi Chanmari-I Lunglei Page No.# 2/3 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 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. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in preferring the substitution application for substituting the name of the respondent No. 2 by the applicant in the connected appeal being RFA No. 29/2021. Page No.# 3/3 3. 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 above-noted appeal, passed away on 04.09.2023. However, this fact was not known to the applicant as she had stopped all forms of communication/relationship from the respondents after her divorce from the respondent No. 1 on 30.03.2016; and the death of the respondent No. 2 came to the knowledge of the applicant only after his demise was intimated to the counsel on 02.02.2026. 4. The further grounds for delay has been duly explained in paragraph Nos. 2, (iii), (iv) & (v) of this application. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the applicant and on perusal of the grounds stated in the above-noted paragraphs; this Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by a sufficient cause in not filing the substitution petition on time. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have no objection condoning the delay, in question. 6. In view of the above; the delay of 29 days in filing the substitution petition is hereby condoned. 7. The interlocutory application accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant