DEBASISH DAS Vs. PRITILATA BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condoning the delay of 404 days in preferring the connected appeal No.MAT App.21 of 2025, against the judgment dtd. 30/3/2024 passed by learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in T.S (RCR) 24 of 2022 and the related decree thereof, whereby the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.

(2.) In an attempt to explain the delay of such a long period, the petitioner states that after the said judgment was pronounced on 30/3/2024, he learnt about the same only in the last week of June 2024 through his engaged Advocate. Thereafter, he applied for the certified copies of the said judgment and decree in the first week of July 2024 and received the same in the second week of August 2024. It is further stated that he earlier lost his vision of one eye and he was also suffering from various diseases during that period, for which he had to visit different hospitals outside the State, including receiving of treatment at Hyderabad, and thereafter also he was confined in his house as per medical advice. Subsequently, in the first week of December 2024, he met his Advocate who instructed him to visit again after 2[two] weeks. He again met the said Advocate on 18/12/2024, and at that time he was advised to meet him again in the first week of January 2025, as the winter vacation was intervening in the meantime.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner met his Advocate on 15/1/2025 and said Advocate advised him at that time to engage another Advocate who was practising in the High Court. Accordingly, he consulted another learned Advocate in the first week of February, 2025 and said Advocate advised him to meet him in the first week of March, 2025 i.e. after one month but due to his poor health condition, he was unable to meet him and ultimately he visited the Advocate's chamber only in June 2025. As the health condition of that learned counsel was also not well, the petitioner, on his advice again, approached his present Advocate in July 2025. Then on scrutiny, it was found that certain documents, including said certified copies of the judgment and decree, were missing from the file. He therefore again, collected certified copies and the appeal was finally submitted on 8/8/2025. Therefore, such a long delay has occurred.