Point of Law: The expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party.

JUDGMENT :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. Heard on IA No.1/2020, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Family Court, Korba in Civil Suit No.62-A/2008, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the suit for divorce filed by the appellant husband.

3. The appellant has filed this application (IA No.1) for condonation of delay caused in filing the instant appeal on the ground that he filed a suit for divorce against his wife, which was dismissed by the learned Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.2015, but since his local counsel did not inform him about the said judgment and decree and thereafter also when he approached the counsel at Bilaspur for filing of an appeal, but unfortunately he died, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within limitation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 20.10.2015 vide Annexure-A/1, but the same was not informed to the appellant by his local counsel and when the appellant contacted the Court personnels in the month of October, 2017, then only he got to know that the judgment and decree has already been passed on 20.10.2015. Thereafter, the appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree on 28.10.2017, which he got on 25.11.2017 and immediately thereafter he provided the entire file to local counsel and then he came to Bilaspur along with his local counsel and met with counsel at Bilaspur, who assured him of filing appeal within time, but unfortunately after sometime the said counsel died. When the appellant tried to know about his appeal, then he got to know that the appeal has not been filed before the High Court, thus the delay caused in filing the instant appeal is due to lack of knowledge of the appellant being a senior citizen as of now, non information by his local counsel at Korba and non filing of the appeal by his counsel at Bilaspur on account of his sudden demise, as such the delay on his part is bonafide, therefore, the application may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice and the delay of 1514 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that after separation of both the parties, various cases regarding maintenance, return of streedhan, dissolution of marriage etc. have been filed against each other, therefore, in no circumstances, it can be said that the appellant had no knowledge about non filing of appeal within limitation, thus the same is not bonafide. He further submits that the suit preferred by the appellant husband for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed by the learned Family Court, Korba on 24.01.2012 in Civil Suit No.62-A/2008, against which he filed appeal before this High Court bearing FA(M) No.99/2012. The High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2012 and remanded the case for rehearing and adducing evidence of both the parties and deciding the case afresh.

Thereafter, the learned Family Court passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.10.2015, whereby the suit for divorce was dismissed. He further submits that the respondent wife filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No.154-A/2016 before the Family Court, Korba on 20.07.2016 against the appellant husband for return of streedhan, which was partly allowed vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2017 and streedhans/household articles except scooter and jwellery were directed to be returned back to respondent wife, against which the appellant husband filed appeal bearing FA (M) No.14/2018 before the Hi