IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that while condoning delay, a pragmatic approach must balance the rights of parties, and costs may be imposed to ensure fairness.

ORDER :

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in preferring the connected appeal against the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl in Heirship Application No. 1135/2020. Though the delay was stated to be of 45 days, the same was found by the Office to be 520 days. Accordingly, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the applicant attempting to explain the said delay.

2. I have heard Shri Lalfakwma, learned counsel for the applicant. I have also heard Shri J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party/respondent no. 1.

3. Shri Lalfakwma, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the subject matter of appeal is an order dated 25.11.2020 pertaining to allowing the Heirship Application of the opposite party no. 1. At the outset, he submits that though in an application for delay condonation, one is not normally required to traverse upon the merits of the matter, in the instant case, it may also have a bearing as according to the applicant, he is the only surviving son of the original owner. On the other hand, the opposite party no. 1 is the granddaughter and therefore, prima facie, such Heirship Certificate could not have been granted. It is also submitted that the Certificate was granted on the same day when it was applied for without even issuing notice.

4. It is submitted that the impugned order is of 25.11.2020, and the appeal was presented on 01.11.2023. In order to explain the delay, the learned counsel for the applicant has, at the outset referred to the case of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, (2020) 9 SCC 468 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down that for the period from 15.03.2020 to 18.02.2022, limitation would not apply as it was the period of the pandemic. A further period of 90 (Ninety) days was included from 01.03.2022 to 29.05.2022. He accordingly submits that the delay is to be thereby counted from 30.05.2022.

5. He submits that initially, the applicant had approached the Lok Adalat for settlement of the matter which was subsequently realized to be without jurisdiction. Thereafter, the applicant had filed an application for issuance of Heirship Certificate which was allowed on the same date, i.e. 23.02.2021. As the same was issued without notice, the opposite party no. 1 had filed a review petition which was accordingly allowed on 17.06.2022. Thereafter, the applicant had filed a Declaratory Suit on 01.08.2022 being Civil Suit No. 77/2022, which had continued for almost a year. Subsequently, on 07.09.2023, the said Civil Suit No. 77/2022 was withdrawn and certified copy of the impugned order dated 25.11.2020 was applied for on 18.10.2023. As there were certain Court holidays, the RFA could be presented only on 01.11.2023 and thereby, the delay had occurred.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that there was no negligence or laches on his part and the delay had occasioned for reasons beyond his control. He submits that the suo moto proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on account of the pandemic would come to his aid to explain the delay. He has also submitted that the applicant was in Defence Service and was posted elsewhere when the impugned order was passed on 25.11.2020 and he had retired from service thereafter on 30.11.2020. He has highlighted the aspect that the same was passed without issuing notice.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and contented that he would also get the benefit of the said provision inasmuch as, he had approached the Lok Adalat and also the Civil Court for remedial measure which was on a bona fide belief and both the aforesaid fora did not have jurisdiction.

8. He has also contended that technicalities involved in a case should give way to substantial justice and in this regard, he has