Gauhati High Court
IA(C)/280/2025 of Tate Mibang Vs Tanyup Mize on 15 February 2026
GAHC040018882025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/280/2025 Tate Mibang Son of Late Tapang Mibang, a permanent resident of Mangnang Village, PO and PS Sille, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS
GAHC040018882025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : IA(C)/280/2025
Tate Mibang
Son of Late Tapang Mibang, a permanent resident of Mangnang Village, PO and PS
Sille, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
Tanyup Mize
Son of Late Tamer Mize, a permanent resident of Mirem Village, PO Bilat, PS
Ruksin, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.
Advocate for the Petitioner : Adam Tatak, 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
16.02.2026 Heard Mr. T. Tanum, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The Office Note dated 11.02.2026 reflects that service of notice upon the sole respondent has been duly served; however, none has appeared on behalf of the said respondent.
3. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of a delay of 135 days in preferring the second appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2025 passed in Civil Kebang Appeal No. 156/2023 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pasighat.
4. Mr. Tanum, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the grounds for the delay in filing the connected appeal have been explained in paragraphs 4 to 5 of the delay condonation petition.
5. Considering the explanations provided in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The respondent, despite having receipt of the notice, have not appeared today. Therefore, it is presumed that he has no objection to the condonation of delay.
6. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, the interlocutory application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the delay of 135 days in preferring the second connected appeal stands condoned.
7. The Registry is directed to register the connected Appeal and list the same for admission hearing after 3(three) weeks.
8. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of in terms above.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant