Gauhati High Court - Aizawl
Smt. Zorinpuii vs Smt. Vanlalthani on 15 January, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
2026:GAU-MZ:8
GAHC030004722025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/118/2025
Smt. Zorinpuii
D/o Sh. Zarmawia (L), R/o Chite Veng, Aizawl
VERSUS
Smt. Vanlalthani
W/o Sh. Zarmawia (L), R/o Chite Veng, Aizawl
Advocate for the Petitioner : K Remruatfela
Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte
Linked Case : RFA/29/2025
Smt. Zorinpuii
D/o Sh. Zarmawia (L)
R/o Chite Veng
Aizawl
VERSUS
Smt. Vanlalthani
W/o Sh. Zarmawia (L)
R/o Chite Veng
Aizawl
Advocate for the Petitioner : K Remruatfela
Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte
Page No.# 2/6
2026:GAU-MZ:8
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG
ORDER
15.01.2026 Heard Mr. K. Remruatfela, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant along with Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, r/w Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the condonation of a delay of 680 days in filing the Regular First Appeal against the impugned Heirship Certificate Order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Aizawl.
3. Mr. K. Remruatfela, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the delay of 680 days in filing the Regular First Appeal was not due to any negligence or inaction by the applicant. He submitted that the opposite party had obtained the impugned Heirship Certificate No. 835/2023 in respect of LSC No. An 740/1989 located at Chite Veng, Aizawl, which belonged to the deceased father of the applicant, Shri. Zarmawia (L) on 16.06.2023, without issuing notice to the interested parties or published a newspaper publication. Since no notice was issued the applicant was Page No.# 3/6 2026:GAU-MZ:8 unaware of the proceedings for issuance of the heirship certificate and was therefore, deprived of the opportunity to contest the issuance of the Heirship Certificate to the opposite party.
4. The learned counsel submits that the applicant is an interested party because she had been residing within the LSC No. An 740/1989 since 2020 (the supporting documents enclosed). He submitted that the applicant became suspicious about the existence of an Heirship Certificate only in the early part of 2025, when the opposite party demanded that the applicant vacate her residence by stating that the house where she was residing, now legally belonged to the opposite party.
The learned counsel submitted that the applicant then filed an RTI application to verify regarding the ownership claimed by the opposite party and received the RTI reply on 24.02.2025, wherein, the applicant discovered, for the first time, the existence of the impugned Heirship Certificate issued in favor of the opposite party. The applicant then promptly took steps to file an appeal by filing a condonation application before the District & Session Judge, Aizawl, Judicial District on 04.03.2025, which was registered as Regular First Appeal No. 12/2024, however, the same was dismissed by the Court on 02.06.2025, due to lack pecuniary Page No.# 4/6 2026:GAU-MZ:8 jurisdiction. The learned counsel submitted that thereafter, the applicant applied for a Certified True Copy of the order dated 02.06.2025 and also re- applied for a Certified True Copy of the impugned order dated 12.02.2023 which was received on 23.07.2025. On receiving the Certified True Copy, the applicant took immediate steps to file the instant condonation application along with the connected Regular First Appeal. He submitted that the delay of 680 days was therefore, not due to any fault of the applicant and thus prayed that the condonation of delay may be granted.
5. Per contra, Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the applicant is not the daughter of Shri. Zarmawia (L) as claimed by her and therefore, there was no reason to issue notice to her by the learned Trial Court while granting Heirship Certificate Application. He submitted that the learned Trial Court after examining the person who had issued a no objection certificate and the opposite party, was satisfied that the opposite party was the legal heir of the deceased. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant/appellant has no locus standi to file the instant appeal and therefore, there were no grounds to condoned the delay of 680 days and the condonation application deserves to be dismissed outright.
Page No.# 5/6 2026:GAU-MZ:8
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused and documents on record.
7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 12.06.2023, granting the Heirship Certificate to the opposite party, it is seen that the learned Trial Court had perused the documents enclosed by the opposite party and the examination-in-chief in affidavit, wherein, the Court found it not necessary to issue notice as practice being of the opinion that the application is genuine and true.
The learned Trial Court accordingly, allowed the issuance of the Heirship Certificate in respect of LSC No. CAD_6 of 2019 and LSC No. An 740/1989 located at Chite Veng, Aizawl which was in the name of Shri. Zarmawia (L) in favour of the opposite party w/o Shri. Zarmawia (L).
It is thus seen that no notice was issued to the instant applicant who was residing within the LSC No. An 740/1989 located at Chite Veng, Aizawl. The genuineness of the claim made by the applicant that she is the daughter of the deceased Shri. Zarmawia (L) is a question of fact which has to be proved before the learned Trial Court.
8. Upon considering the circumstances highlighted above, this Court Page No.# 6/6 2026:GAU-MZ:8 also finds that the applicant got to know about issuance of the Heirship Certificate No. 835/2023 dated 12.06.2023 only from the RTI reply dated 24.02.2025 (supporting documents enclosed). It is also seen that further delay was also caused due to the applicant filing the appeal and condonation of delay application before the wrong forum, before approaching this Court.
9. This Court is therefore, satisfied with the above reasons given by the applicant for the delay of 680 days in filing the Regular First Appeal against the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II which, this Court finds, was not due to any negligence or laches on the part of the applicant/appellant.
10. This Court thus find it fit to condoned the delay of 680 days in filing the Regular First Appeal against the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Aizawl in Heirship Certificate in 835/2024.
11. I.A.(C) No. 118/2025 accordingly stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant