2024:MLHC:894-DB
Serial No. 02
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC (FA) No. 2 of 2024
Date of Decision: 30.09.2024
1. State of Meghalaya
Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary,
Community and Rural Development,
Shillong.
2. The Director,
Community and Rural Development,
Shillong.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Community and Rural Development,
Shillong. …. Applicant(s)/Appellant(s)
Versus
Shri Jolian Marak,
R/o Lower Mission Compound, Tura
West Garo Hills, Meghalaya
… Respondent(s)/Opp. Party
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Chief Justice (Acting)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Applicant(s)/Appellant(s): Mr. S. Sen, GA
For the Respondent(s)/Opp. Party: Mr. S. Pandit, Adv. with
Mr. D. Hynniewta, Adv.
1 3
Page of
2024:MLHC:894-DB
__________________________________________________________
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
Per. H.S. Thangkhiew, Chief Justice (Acting):
(ORAL)
1. This is an application for condonation for the delay of 292
days in preferring the appeal against the Judgment & Order dated
24.05.2023, passed in Commercial Money Suit No. 1 of 2016.
2. The reasons given for the delay are that the concerned
Department on receiving a copy of the order had forwarded the same to
the higher ups on 04.07.2023, and that the process had consumed much
time as given in Paragraphs 5 to 10 of the application, wherein it is seen
that the delay was caused mostly due to intra-Departmental activities
and also movement of the file.
3. Mr. S. Sen, learned GA for the applicants/appellants submits
that the delay was due to bona fide reasons as given in the said
application.
4. Mr. S. Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite
party has raised strong objections and has drawn the attention of this
Court to the Annexure-6 of the said application to show that the Law
Department had been consulted for an opinion as far back as on
2 3
Page of
2024:MLHC:894-DB
11.08.2023, and that an explanation had also been given at that point of
time. He therefore, submits that no sufficient cause having been shown,
the appeal is liable to be not entertained and the condonation application
be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
examination of the materials on record, it appears from the grounds as
set out in the above quoted paragraphs, the delay was caused primarily
due to the fact that the movement of the file after the judgment, was
indeed slow, which in normal circumstances would not be a ground for
condonation of delay. However, in the interest of justice, and the
condonation being of 292 days, the delay is condoned and the appeal
shall be posted for consideration. Registry to diarize register the said
appeal for admission.
6. This Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (H.S. Thangkhiew)
Judge Chief Justice (Acting)
Meghalaya
30.09.2024
“V. Lyndem PS”
Signature Not Verified 3 3
Page of
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2024.10.01 12:23:39 IST