Condonation of delay : Financial crunch or illness of a family member, when constitute sufficient cause
Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Appeal Due to Inordinate Delay: Insufficient Grounds for Condonation Appeal by Chandrakant Ojha against Divorce Petition Dismissal Faces 207-Day Delay with Lack of Sufficient Explanation
In a significant judgment delivered by the Jharkhand High Court, the appeal filed by Chandrakant Ojha challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition has been dismissed due to a substantial delay of 207 days in filing the appeal. The court held that the reasons provided for the delay were inadequate and did not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The judgment, passed by a division bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, addressed the delay in filing an appeal against the decision made by the Family Court, Garhwa, which had rejected Ojha's petition for divorce from his wife, Chanchala Kumari. Ojha cited financial constraints and the illness of his father as reasons for the delay, but the court found these grounds insufficient.
The court emphasized that Ojha, being a government employee receiving a regular salary, could not claim financial difficulties as a valid reason for the delay. Furthermore, Ojha failed to provide adequate proof that his father's illness had prevented him from pursuing the appeal in a timely manner.
The court extensively discussed the principles governing the condonation of delay, referencing multiple Supreme Court judgments that underscore the necessity for a 'sufficient cause' which is devoid of negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide intention. The bench clarified that the law of limitation is founded on public policy, ensuring that legal remedies are pursued within a legislatively fixed period to avoid stale claims.
Justice Prasad, writing for the bench, highlighted that the appellant did not act with diligence and the grounds presented were insufficient to justify the delay. The court reiterated that merely because sufficient cause is shown does not grant an automatic right for condonation; it requires judicial discretion based on the facts presented.
In dismissing the appeal, the court underscored the importance of adhering to procedural timelines, reiterating that statutory limitations serve to secure peace in the community and prevent oppression through prolonged litigation.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural rules while ensuring justice is served efficiently and equitably. It also stresses the criticality of prompt action in legal proceedings, cautioning against casual approaches to delays which can undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
Bottom Line:
Delay in filing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 must be supported by sufficient cause. Financial crunch or illness of a family member, without adequate proof of inability to act, does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Statutory provision(s): Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5, Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19(1), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)
Chandrakant Ojha v. Chanchala Kumari, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2785686
