The importance of truthfulness and genuineness in setting out the grounds of delay in an application for condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Pradhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mrs. Annie Lalenkawli, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 1507 days in filing the connected appeal under Section 17(2) of the Mizoram Civil Court Act, 2005 read with Section 96 of the CPC against the Order dated 11.03.2019 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl, Mizoram in Heirship Case No. 55/2019 and Heirship Certificate Memo No. 182/SCJ(A)/2019 dated 11.03.2019 issued by the said Court in favour of the respondent, i.e. Tochhawng Lalpianmawia in respect of LSC No. 63/1968 located at Chanmari, Aizawl left by T. Sangkhuma (late father of the applicant and the respondent).

3. The facts of the case is that the respondent was issued a Heirship Certificate i.e. Heirship Certificate Memo No. 182/SCJ(A)/2019 dated 11.03.2019 against a land left by the father of the applicant and the respondent vide the Order dated 11.03.2019 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl, Mizoram in Heirship Case No. 55/2019. The applicant being aggrieved by the said Order dated 11.03.2019 preferred the appeal along with a condonation application.

4. Mr. Saurabh Pradhan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Heirship Certificate was issued on 11.03.2019 in the absence of the applicant and the applicant was unaware of the same and the notice even if issued in newspaper is also not known by the applicant. It was only in April, 2023, the applicant came to know about the impugned Judgment & Order and the impugned Heirship Certificate issued in favour of the respondent when the respondent had asked her to vacate the house and accordingly, there has been a delay of 1507 days in filing the Regular First Appeal which is unintentional and beyond the control of the applicant.

5. Mrs. Annie Lalenkawli, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the applicant was fully aware of the Heirship Certificate proceedings and in fact, she along with her mother had signed the Acknowledgment Certificate, i.e. Hriatpuina, whereby she has acknowledged the fact that the Heirship application has been applied by the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the applicant, despite having known of the proceedings of the Heirship Certificate, chose to stand outside and in fact, by issuing the Acknowledgment Certificate has given no objection to go ahead with the Heirship Certificate. She accordingly submits that the grounds averred in the condonation application is not bona-fide and are not sufficient cause.

7. I have heard the submissions made at the bar and have perused the materials available on record.

8. It appears from the Acknowledgment Certificate which is available at page No. 39 of the connected RFA along with the translated copy at page No. 40, that the applicant acknowledges the Heirship application applied by the respondent. The said Acknowledgment Certificate is extracted here under for ready reference:

“TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

My husband/father T. Sangkhuma had expired on 4.10.2010 and we acknowledge the Heirship Application applied by Tochhawng Lalpianmawia.

Sd/-

T. VANLALHRUAII

D/O T. SANGKHUMA (L)

AIZAWL VENGLAI

Sd/-

ROHMINGTHANGI SAILO

W/O T. SANGKHUMA (L)

AIZAWL VENGLAI.”

9. Paragraph Nos. 9, 10 & 11 of the condonation application setting out the grounds for delay is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“9. That while the appellant has been peacefully living, the respondent asked her to vacate the house some time in the month of April 2023 and when raised objection stating that she too is the daughter who looked after her late father and mother during their life time and in difficult times while the respondent never looked after them, it was informed about the heirship in favour of the respondent by the respondent to the shock and surprise of the appellant. The appellant came to hear about the he