RAMESHCHANDRA Vs. ROOKUMARIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 10. 8. 2000 by which the Trial Court has dismissed the appellant's petition for divorce on the ground that the same is barred on the principle of res judicata. This appeal is barred by 24 days. The appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) HEARD on M (o)P No. 1050/2000 ah application for condonation of the delay. The appellant has filed this appeal on 3. 10. 2000. In the application for condonation of the delay, the submission of the appellant is that he applied for certified copy on 12. 9. 2000, after the period of expiry of limitation. The copy was supplied on 30. 9. 2000. In the application the appellant has mentioned that the Counsel for the appellant Mr. K. C. Nahar informed him that the period of limitation for filing appeal is 60 days. Therefore, he could not file the appeal in time. The learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed the application vehemently. It has been submitted that Mr. K. C. Nahar is an Advocate of long standing and regularly practising in the Bar, since last 20 years. Therefore, it is unbelievable, that he will give wrong information that the period of limitation for filing appeal is 60 days. It has been further objected that the appellant has not filed any affidavit of Mr. K. C. Nahar, Advocate nor of Mr. Mohammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate in whose presence the matter was discussed. Therefore, in the absence of affidavit of the learned Counsel, the submission made by the appellant cannot be believed, application cannot be allowed and delay cannot be condoned.

(3.) I have also perused the application. In the application the appellant has not stated any reason that when the decree was passed on 10. 8. 2000 then why he has filed an application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree on 12. 9. 2000, after the expiry of period of limitation.