Dr. Lalnunfela & Ors. v. The State of Mizoram & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
the parties, this Interlocutory Application stands allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalchhanhima Sailo Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R 1-6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER
Operative part
23.06.2026 Heard Mr. Lalchhanhima Sailo, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. This Interlocutory Application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the applicant for amendment of the Writ Petition No. 68/2026. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that subsequent development, that took place after filing of the WP(C) No. 68/2026 necessitates amendment of the writ petition, and the same has been stated in paragraph No. 8 of this Interlocutory Application from (i) to (iii) and as such, he has contended to allow this application. The learned counsel for the respondent authorities submits that they have no objection. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of the learned counsels for both Page No.# 11/11 the parties, this Interlocutory Application stands allowed. The Writ Petition No. 68/2026 be amended as stated in paragraph No. 8 of (i) to (iii) of this Interlocutory Application. In view of the order passed in this Interlocutory Application, the petitioner shall file amended writ petition within a period of 1 (one) week from today. Comparing Assistant JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the parties, this Interlocutory Application stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 23 Jun 2026. The bench was ROBIN PHUKAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.