29.07.2025 vs The State Of Meghalaya Through The … on 29 July, 2025

Meghalaya High Court

Date Of Order: 29.07.2025 vs The State Of Meghalaya Through The … on 29 July, 2025

Author: W. Diengdoh

Bench: W. Diengdoh

                                                              2025:MLHC:650-DB


Serial No. 04
                          HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Daily List
                                AT SHILLONG

      MC(WA) No. 61 of 2025

                                                        Date of order: 29.07.2025
      Shri George M. Lanong                                          ....Applicant

                                        - versus -
      1.       The State of Meghalaya through the Secretary to the Government
               of Meghalaya, Department of Law, Meghalaya Civil Secretariat,
               Shillong, Meghalaya., Pin-793001

      2.  Md. Habib                                      ....Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:

For the Applicant : Mr S. Chakrawarty, Sr Adv with
Mr E. Laloo, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA
Mr B. Deb, Adv

There is a delay of 287 days in preferring the appeal. The principal

ground made out in this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1963 is that the wife of the Senior Advocate engaged by the appellant to

prepare and conduct the appeal had to undergo a major open-heart surgery

and for that reason drafting and filing of the appeal was delayed.

It is not anybody’s case that the appellant was responsible for the

delay.

The Supreme Court has told us over the years by various

decisions that a litigant does not benefit by delaying an appeal. In fact, he

Page 1 of 2
2025:MLHC:650-DB

runs a serious risk by doing so [see Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag

and another v. Mst. Katiji and others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107].

Secondly, a litigant could not be made to suffer any consequence for

which he was not responsible and the cause of the delay was his learned

lawyer. “Sufficient cause” for the purpose of condonation of delay should

be interpreted so as to advance the cause of substantial justice [see State

of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others

reported in (1972) 1 SCC 366]

In this case, it was not delay caused by a casual attitude on the

part of the learned lawyer. It has been stated on oath that a member of his

family was suffering from a very serious illness which he had to attend

to and for which the appeal could not be filed within time.

We accept the explanation and condone the delay. We allow this

application [MC(WA) No. 61 of 2025] under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, 1963.

We direct the Registry to register the appeal.

                                 (W. Diengdoh)                                   (I.P. Mukerji)
                                     Judge                                        Chief Justice




Signature Not Verified                                                                   Page 2 of 2
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2025.07.29 18:19:39 IST