Applicant sought condonation of a 1782-day delay in filing a first appeal against an heirship certificate order, having learned of the mutation of her land holding only through RTI responses. Court found reasons bona fide and condoned the delay.
Delay of 1782 days in filing the connected appeal condoned; I.A. disposed as allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC030005462025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/141/2025
Smt. Lalrinsangi D/o Lalrinsanga (L), R/o House No. 81, Dawrpui Vengthar, Aizawl, Mizoram
VERSUS
Sh. P.C. Lalmalsawma S/o Lalsanga (L), R/o Dawrpui Vengthar, Aizawl, Mizoram
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalfakawma
Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case : RFA/35/2025
Smt. Lalrinsangi D/o Lalsanga (L) R/o House No. 81 Dawrpui Vengthar Aizawl Mizoram
VERSUS
Sh. P.C. Lalmalsawma S/o Lalsanga (L) R/o Dawrpui Vengthar Aizawl Mizoram
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalfakawma Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
ORDER
17.03.2026
Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that by filing this application, the applicant seeks condonation of 1782 days delay in filing the connected Regular First Appeal against the Order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl in Heirship Certificate Case No. 868/2018.
The learned counsel submits that despite service of notice upon the sole respondent by way of dasti as permitted by this Court on 17.11.2025, the respondent has failed to appear before the Court and this Court vide Order dated 20.01.2026 had accepted the notice to be completed upon the sole respondent while fixing the matter again on 05.02.2026. When the matter was listed on 05.02.2026, the sole respondent failed to appear but this Court again adjourned the matter for two (2) weeks to enable the respondent to appear. However, the respondent No. 2 has failed to appear before the Court till date
Page No.# 3/4
and the learned counsel submits that the delay in filing the connected appeal may be condoned.
Referring to the application, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the statements made more particularly at paragraph No. 2 wherein, explanations have been made with regard to the delay in filing the appeal. The learned counsel submits that the applicant came to know about the LSC in question i.e., LSC No. 147/1973 being mutated in the name of the respondent who in fact is her younger brother. He submits that the applicant therefore submitted an application under the RTI Act to the Revenue Department and in response to the same, the applicant was informed that the LSC has been mutated in the name of the respondent on the strength of the Heirship Certificate issued in his favour. The information was given to the applicant vide letter dated 25.04.2025 but there was no mention as to which Court had issued the Heirship Certificate and therefore, the applicant once again submitted RTI application seeking the details. The applicant was accordingly informed about the Court which gave the Heirship Certificate along with the copy of the said order vide letter dated 09.07.2025. The applicant then consulted her lawyer on the matter and she was advised to obtain all the relevant documents pertaining to the Heirship Certificate case.
The applicant therefore submitted one more application asking for copies of
Page No.# 4/4
all the relevant records and orders in respect of the Heirship Certificate application. The same was furnished to her on 05.08.2025 where after, the applicant through her lawyer prepared the connected appeal and filed the same on 19.08.2025. The learned counsel submits that by that time, a delay of 1782
days in filing the connected appeal had occasioned. He submits that since the delay was due to lack of knowledge about the issuance of Heirship Certificate to the respondent and the steps taken thereafter by the applicant to obtain necessary information and to file an appeal which caused the delay. The same being due to bona fide reasons, the learned counsel submits that the delay may be condoned.
Having considered the submissions and upon perusal of the application and the statements made therein, I am of the view that the applicant has been able to explain the reasons for the delay satisfactorily. Accordingly, the delay of 1782 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned.
I.A. stands disposed of as allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Should the 1782-day delay in filing the Regular First Appeal against the heirship certificate order be condoned?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Lalrinsangi
Sh. P.C. Lalmalsawma
Nelson Sailo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
