Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/79/2026 of SHRI INOKA SEMA Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS on 1 September 2026
GAHC020003112026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/79/2026 SHRI INOKA SEMA S/O NIHOZU SEMA, VEKHUHO NEW VILLAGE ATOIZU TOWN, ZUNHEBOTO, NAGALAND. VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE
GAHC020003112026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/79/2026
SHRI INOKA SEMA
S/O NIHOZU SEMA, VEKHUHO NEW VILLAGE ATOIZU TOWN, ZUNHEBOTO, NAGALAND.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF A.H. AND VETERINARY SERVICES
NAGALAND
KOHIMA
3:THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF A.H. AND VETERINARY SERVICES
NAGALAND
KOHIMA
4:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
ATOUIZU
NAGALAND (PROFORMA RESPONDENT)
5:SMTI. PHUTOLI SEMA
CHOWKIDAR
VETERINARY DISPENSARY
ATOIZU SUB-DIVISION
ZUNHEBOTO
NAGALAN
Advocate for the Petitioner : LOVIKATO SWU, Advocate for the Respondent : ,
Linked Case : WA/19/2026
SHRI INOKA SEMA
S/O NIHOZU SEMA
VEKHUHO NEW VILLAGE
ATOIZU TOWN
ZUNHEBOTO
NAGALAND
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF A.H. AND VETERINARY SERVICES
NAGALAND
KOHIMA
3:THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF A.H. AND VETERINARY SERVICES
NAGALAND
KOHIMA
4:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
ATOUIZU
NAGALAND (PROFORMA RESPONDENT)
5:SMTI. PHUTOLI SEMA
CHOWKIDAR
VETERINARY DISPENSARY
ATOIZU SUB-DIVISION
ZUNHEBOTO
NAGALAND
------------
Advocate for : Z. ZHIMOMI
Advocate for : GOVT ADV NL appearing for THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4
ORS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
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
02.09.2026 (ROBIN PHUKAN, J) Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate for the opposite party Nos. 1-
4.
2. This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant, for condonation of delay of 579 days in preferring the connected writ appeal.
3. Ms. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in respect of the respondent No. 5, service of notice has been effected by substitution mode (Paper Publication) and to that effect, an affidavit has also been filed, enclosing the relevant newspaper, where the notice was published and as such, she submits that service of notice is deemed to have been completed upon the respondent No. 5. 3.1 It appears that service of notice upon the respondent No. 5 is deemed to have been effected, but no-one entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 5. 3.2 Ms. Zhimomi further submits that on account of poverty and ignorance, the applicant could not prefer the appeal in time and the same has been explained in paragraph Nos. 4, 5 & 6 of the application. She also submits that the delay is not intentional and rather, it is circumstantial and as such, she has contended to condone the delay of 579 days and to admit the connected appeal.
4. Ms. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate for the opposite party
Nos. 1-4, submits that she has no objection in the event of condoning the delay of 579 days.
5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, we have carefully gone through the application and also gone through the affidavit and the relevant newspaper, enclosed therewith.
6. Considering the explanation, so forthcoming from the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the explanation put forward in the paragraph Nos. 4, 5 & 6 of the application, we find that the delay has been sufficiently explained. And accordingly, the delay of 579 days, in preferring the connected writ appeal, stands condoned.
7. In view of the order passed in this interlocutory application, now the Registry shall register the connected writ appeal and shall list the same before the Court, as soon as practicable.
8. In terms of the above, this interlocutory application stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant