Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/225/2026 of THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS Vs SMTI. V. INALI AND 151 ORS on 15 September 2026
GAHC020007832026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/225/2026 THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND VERSUS SMTI. V. INALI AND 151 ORS FEMALE WARDER,
GAHC020007832026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/225/2026
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND
VERSUS
SMTI. V. INALI AND 151 ORS
FEMALE WARDER, DISTRICT JAIL, DIMAPUR
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. E. Thiba Phom, Government Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer, Advocate BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
HONBLE MRS JUSTICE HELEN DAWNGLIANI
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 : 16.09.2026
(Devashis Baruah, J)
Heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicants and Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
2. This is an application seeking correction of certain clerical error which crept in the application filed for condonation of delay more particularly at Paragraph No.2 of the Interlocutory Application being I.A.(Civil) No.137/2026 whereby the date mentioned of the letter being 14.04.2026 should have been 14.01.2026 and further the letter dated 08.04.2026 should have been 18.03.2026.
3. Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Government Advocate also submitted that the documents which have been enclosed as Annexures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 would also show that the letter is dated 14.01.2026 and not 14.04.2026 and letter is dated 18.03.2026 and not 08.04.2026. The said letters were enclosed as Annexures 4 and 8 respectively.
4. Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents does not object to the same.
5. Taking into account the above, this Court allows the instant application and thereby observing that the letter dated 14.04.2026 mentioned at Paragraph No.2 of the Interlocutory Application being I.A.(Civil) No.137/2026 shall be read as letter dated 14.01.2026 and further, the letter dated 08.04.2026 which also mentioned at Paragraph No.2 shall be read as letter dated 18.03.2026.
6. I.A. stands allowed.
J U D G E J U D G E Comparing Assistant