DINESH KUMAR Vs. SUMAN BULIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the judgment dated 23.2.2012 learned Family Court, Bhilwara dismissed the application preferred under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by appellant Shri Dinesh Kumar. To challenge the same this appeal was presented before this Court on 9.7.2012. The office on 22.8.2012 pointed out four defects in the appeal as under: -

(2.) From perusal of facts stated in paras 2 and 3 of the application it is apparent that the appellant was knowing about the fact that the judgment shall be pronounced by the Family Court on 23.2.2012. The appellant despite having knowledge about the date for pronouncement of judgment did not choose to appear before the court and also did not care to acquaint himself with the fate of the application.

(3.) It is well settled that to have condonation of delay in filing an appeal the litigant is required to give sufficient reason and the court can condone the delay only on being satisfied that certain compelling circumstances estopped the litigant for approaching the Court in the limitation prescribed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramlal & Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., reported in : AIR 1962 SC 361, held that in construing Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act it is relevant to bear in mind that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right should not be light heartedly disturbed. It was also held that on showing a sufficient cause the delay may be excused and this discretion is required to be exercised to advance substantial justice. No party can claim for condonation of delay even after showing sufficient cause as that is only a condition precedent for exercising of the discretionary jurisdiction vested with court. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done and the application seeking condonation of delay has to be dismissed.