DILEEP KUMAR Vs. M. K. MANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed with an application for condonation of delay of 1931 days in filing the appeal. The judgment impugned is passed in an original petition filed by the wife of the appellant before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The parties were married in 2010 and the original petition was filed in the year 2012 for return of money, gold ornaments and articles entrusted to the husband at the time of marriage. The husband and his parents were the respondents in the petition, who remained ex parte. Eventually an ex parte decree was passed in 2014, which is now challenged in appeal on the ground that the Family Court mechanically allowed the reliefs prayed for, without any discussion regarding the evidence adduced by the petitioner-wife.

(2.) The main contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant to condone the delay is that the delay was occasioned since the appellant was prosecuting an application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree. Obviously, the same was dismissed and so was an appeal filed from the order of dismissal. It is contended that only after dismissal of Mat.Appeal No.725 of 2018, the appellant collected the documents from his Counsel and entrusted another Counsel. It is also stated that the Counsel newly engaged directed a certified copy of the judgment to be taken, which also consumed further time.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent, based on the Counter Affidavit filed, resisted the prayer for condonation of delay. Admittedly, the application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed with 737 days of delay, which itself is gross and was not properly explained. It is seen from the Counter Affidavit that evidence was taken in the application filed before the Family Court and dismissal was on account of the clear finding that the averments raised for condonation of delay are without bonafides and false. Mat.Appeal No.725 of 2018 was also rejected, confirming the order of the Family Court. It is stated in the Counter Affidavit that the reasons stated for delay was found by this Court to be concocted and the grounds urged in the application, fanciful. We have called for the Judges papers in Mat.Appeal 725 of 2018, since the appellant has not produced the orders. We find the averments in the Counter Affidavit to be true and correct. The appellant is guilty of suppressing material facts from us and filing an affidavit merely stating that the applications filed to set aside the ex parte decree and condonation of delay were rejected.