JAISON Vs. RASNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.Application No.1593 of 2016 is an application to condone the delay of 503 days in filing the appeal. The appeal is filed against an order passed in I.A.No.977/2014 by which the Family Court dismissed an application to set aside ex parte decree. The original petition was filed by the respondent herein for appointing her as guardian of the minor and his custody. The Family Court observed that there is delay in filing the application to set aside ex parte decree and no application was filed to condone the delay. Accordingly, the same came to be dismissed. It is challenging the said order that the appeal has been filed.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the above application, it is stated that the impugned order was passed on 11.11.2014. According to him, he instructed his counsel to file appeal against the said order. It is stated that due to inadvertent omission the counsel did not challenge the said matter before the High Court. He challenged another order in I.A.No.2104/2014 in O.P.No.764/2012 by preferring O.P.(F.C). No.603/2014. This Court directed the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to conduct a joint trial of all the cases. According to him, when he went to his lawyer for preparing the case, it was noticed that the impugned order was not challenged. When he approached the counsel the certified copy could not be traced out. He therefore contacted another counsel and submitted a fresh application for certified copy and thereafter obtained a copy of the order. It is submitted that fresh application was filed on 28.01.2015 and certified copy was received on 19.02.2015 and the appeal is filed on 16.05.2016. In the process there occurred a delay of 503 days in filing the appeal.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, inter alia, contending that sufficient reasons had not been stated for condoning the delay. The petitioner had filed several cases and complaints on various disputes and therefore it is totally unbelievable that he was unaware of the non filing of an appeal against I.A.No.977/2014. It is contended that, even according to the petitioner, he was aware of the disposal of the application and therefore it was for him to ensure that the appeal is filed within a period of limitation. There is no valid explanation for the same other than contending that he had challenged another order before this Court.