Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/95/2026 of Sh. John Lalpeka Vs Smt. Lily R. Lalbiakdiki and 2 Ors. on 17 May 2026
GAHC030003042026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030003042026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/95/2026
Sh. John Lalpeka
S/o Lalromawia,
R/o Chaltlang Ruam Veng,
Aizawl, Mizoram
VERSUS
Smt. Lily R. Lalbiakdiki and 2 Ors.
D/o R. Lalnithanga,
R/o Chhinga Vengthlang, Aizawl, Mizoram
2:Life Insurance Corporation of India
Central Office
3:The Branch Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Aizawl Branch
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. T Lalnunsiama Advocate for the Respondent : Mr B Lalramenga
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
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 : 18.05.2026
Heard Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel submits that by filing this application, the applicant seeks for condonation of delay of four (4) days in filing an appeal against the impugned Order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) - 4, Aizawl in CMA No. 831 of 2025 arising out of Civil Suit No. 118 of 2025 and CMA No. 1116 of 2025 arising out of CMA No. 831 of 2025. Referring to the statements made in the application, more particularly at Paragraph No. 3, the learned counsel submits that delay was on account of not having a certified copy typed out in folio paper. The appeal was sought to be filed with the impugned order not in folio paper but the Registry has declined to accept the same and therefore the applicant had to apply for a fresh copy in folio paper. The same was applied on 30.04.2025 and then made available on 06.05.2025. As a result, there is a delay of four (4) days. The learned counsel submits that delay is on account of bona-fide reasons and the same may be condoned. Mr. Lawmawma Ralte, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, at this stage submits that the respondent No. 1 has filed a caveat but considering the number of days delay, the respondents has no objection if the delay is condoned. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties appearing today, this Court considers that delay should be condoned since the nature of dispute apparently is mainly between the applicant and the respondent No. 1.
In view of above, the delay of four (4) days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned. I.A. stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant