Sh. Laltanpuia (Now dead) r/b his legal representative Smt. Lalkhumtiri Renthlei v. Sh. Darthuama (Now dead) r/b his legal representative Smt. Lalthakimi

Sh. Darthuama (Now dead) r/b his legal representative Smt. Lalthakimi R/o Zemabawk North Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalfakawma Advocate for the Respondent : Mr R Lalawmpuia Page No.# 2/8 ORDER BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

11.06.2025 Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ram Murmu, learned counsel for the respondent. By filing this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant prays for condonation of 427 days delay in filing the connected Civil Revision Petition against the order dated

26.09.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Aizawl in Execution Case No. 22/2020. [2.] Referring to the application, Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel submits that after the order dated 26.09.2023 was passed by the executing Court, the applicant inadvertently approached the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl by filing Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) and the same was registered as Civil Revision Petition No. 23/2024. Since there was delay in filing the same, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 562/2024 was filed seeking condonation of 246 days delay in filing the Civil Revision Petition. He submits that although the applicant was represented by a Legal Aid Counsel, he was not informed about the disposal of the Execution Page No.# 3/8 Case and it was only in the month of December, 2023 that he became aware. The applicant was having financial difficulties and therefore, it was only in the month of January, 2024 that he found an advocate who was willing to take up his case. Thereafter, copies of the relevant documents were obtained in the month of February, 2024 but the said counsel informed the applicant on

21.03.2024 that he will not be able to pursue his case in the District Court. The applicant being a daily wage worker and working in a construction site as Helper could not pursue his case. [3.] Subsequently, in the month of May, 2024, the applicant met another advocate who was willing to take up the case on pro-bono basis and the applicant handed over the brief to him on 04.06.2024. The said counsel after making extensive research filed the Revision Petition before the District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl on 28.06.2024. However, after much deliberation, the counsel for the applicant realised that they had approached the wrong forum in seeking a relief under Section 115 CPC. He accordingly submitted his application for withdrawal of the Civil Revision Petition under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC. The same was allowed vide Order dated 29.01.2025. After the withdrawal of the Civil Revision Petition, the applicant could engage the present counsel only on

04.02.2025 and her counsel upon collecting all the necessary materials was able Page No.# 4/8 to file the Civil Revision Petition before this Court only on 24.02.2025. The learned counsel thus submits that thus a delay of 427 days has occasioned and which was only due to bonafide reasons and the delay may be condoned. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Purni Devi & Anr. Vs. Babu Ram & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 482 and the case of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 752. [4.] Mr. Ram Murmu, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed against the application for condonation of delay submits that the applicant has failed to make an explanation with sufficient cause for condoning the enormous and inordinate delay of 427 days in filing the connected Civil Revision Petition. He submits that the applicant was very much aware about the pendency of the Execution Case and in fact he had contested the same by filing objection. Therefore, it is not believable that the applicant was not aware about the disposal of the Execution Case. The learned counsel further submits that after the Execution Case was disposed of, the applicant preferred Civil Revision Petition before the District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl by invoking Section 115 CPC. However, after the same was pending for about seven (7) months along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the said Civil Revision Petition, the applicant withdrew the same on realizing that Civil Revision Petition would not lie before the said Court under Section 115 CPC. Page No.# 5/8 [5.] The learned counsel submits that although the applicant has sought for condonation of delay by also relying upon Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has failed to show any bonafied in approaching the wrong forum. In other words, he submits that the applicant has not been diligent in pursuing her case and for which reason, the delay should not be condoned. The learned counsel submits that there is an unexplained delay for about 40 days from

21.03.2024 to 30.04.2024 and thereafter from 04.05.2024 to 04.06.2024. The learned counsel submits that explanations so made are very sketchy and in fact they are only an afterthought. [6.] The learned counsel submits that the explanation tendered cannot be considered as an explanation per se but only and excuse to seek condonation of the delay. He submits that excuse unlike an explanation would not be acceptable for condoning the delay because the same lacks bonafide. He thus submits that under the facts and circumstance, there has been inordinate delay in filing the connected Civil Revision Petition pure to sheer negligence on the part of the applicant and therefore, the delay may not be condoned and application should be rejected. In support of his submission, Mr. Ram Murmu, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through LRS & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2023) 10 SCC 531 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612. Page No.# 6/8 [7.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the authorities relied upon by them. This Court had asked the learned counsel for the applicant for a copy of the objection filed against the Execution Case. Today, the learned counsel for the applicant has produced the same and it appears that the applicant pursuant to the order passed by the Lok Adalat had made two (2) attempts to hand over the sum of money quantified to the respondent in the month of June, 2010 but the latter had refused the same saying that they will have a discussion within the family. Thereafter, there was no news about the discussion in the family and the respondent instead had initiated Civil Suit No. 84/2011 against the applicant. The Civil Suit however was dismissed vide Judgment dated 26.11.2013. Aggrieved, the respondent had filed Regular First Appeal before the First Appellate Court i.e., RFA No. 5/2014. The same was disposed of vide order dated 21.01.2015 by remanding the matter back to the learned Civil Judge for de novo trial. On remand, the respondent prayed for withdrawal of the Civil Suit. The Civil Suit was therefore allowed to be Page No.# 7/8 withdrawn vide order dated 03.12.2019. It was pursuant to the said withdrawal that Execution Case was initiated by the respondent. All such process had happened prior to filing of the Execution Case and therefore the same cannot be relied upon as ground for condoning the delay in approaching this Court against the order passed in the Execution Case on 26.09.2023. [7.] It is also seen that the applicant has not been meticulous in explaining the delay by giving necessary particulars such as relevant date. In other words, the explanation made in the application appears to be sketchy as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent. However, one aspect of the matter which has drawn the attention of this Court is the submission made on behalf of the applicant that the executing Court had misinterpreted the order passed by the Lok Adalat. [9.] The Apex Court in the case of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao & Ors. (surpa) had referred to an earlier decision of the same Court rendered in O.P. Kathpalia Vs. Lakhmir Singh (1984) 4 SCC 66 wherein a bench of three (3) Judges held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. The delay was accordingly condoned. Similarly, in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through LRS & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court in the given facts of that case although the Apex Page No.# 8/8 Court deprecated the making of an excuse in the form of an explanation held that the law of limitation is founded on public policy, and that some lapse on the part of a litigant, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could cause miscarriage of justice. [10.] Thus, upon due consideration of the projection made by the parties despite having noticed deficiency in the explanation tendered for explaining the delay, this Court is of the considered view that it would be for ends of justice that the delay is condoned and the connected petition be considered on merits. Accordingly, the delay of 427 days stands condoned. I.A is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant