Gauhati High Court
IA(Crl)/51/2025 of Ms Priya Boo Vs Chow Pintika Mannow on 17 March 2026
GAHC040009262025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/51/2025 Ms Priya Boo Daughter of Silium Boo, resident of Loilang Village, Tezu, PO and PS Tezu, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Chow Pintika Mannow
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC040009262025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : IA(Crl)/51/2025
Ms Priya Boo
Daughter of Silium Boo, resident of Loilang Village, Tezu, PO and PS Tezu, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
Chow Pintika Mannow
Son of Longni Mannow, C/o Govt Higher Secondary Namsai, PO and PS Namsai, District Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Vijay Jamoh, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 18-03-2026 Heard Mr. A. Gamre, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The records reveal that the applicant has taken steps for service of notice upon the respondent by way of Dasti mode and an affidavit has been filed which shows that the notice was received by the respondent. However, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Page No.# 2/2
3. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezu, Lohit District in Case No. 04(L)/2021 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4. The grounds for delay in filing the connected appeal have been explained in Paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the condonation petition.
5. Upon hearing the counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the grounds stated in the above paragraphs, this Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the connected appeal within the stipulated period of time. Moreover, the respondent, despite receipt of notice, remains absent, which indicates and can be well presumed that he has no objection in condoning the delay.
6. In view of the above, the delay of 15 days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned.
7. With the above, this interlocutory application stands disposed of.
8. Office to register the appeal and list it after 2 (two) weeks. JUDGE Comparing Assistant