Point of Law: Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So, a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. B.J. Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. K.R. Dave, learned advocate for the opponent.

2. Rule. Mr. K.R. Dave, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the opponent.

3. By way of this application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 471 days in filing the First Appeal challenging the order dated 28.5.2019 passed below Exh.11 by the learned Family Court Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh in Family Suit No. 84 of 2018, whereby the said Suit came to be dismissed as barred by the principles of res-judicata.

4. Mr. B.J. Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of this application and relying upon the contentions raised in the application, has submitted that the applicant had filed Suit for divorce being Marriage Suit no. 17 of 2016 before the learned Principal Civil Judge (S.D.) Bhuj, which came to be transferred to the Family Court at Bhuj and renumbered as Family Suit No. 92 of 2016. Mr. Trivedi invited attention of this Court to Exh.20 purshis filed in the said Suit, whereby Marriage Suit No. 17 of 2016 came to be withdrawn on a compromise arrived at between the parties. Mr. Trivedi contended that thereafter, the compromise did not work and therefore, a subsequent Suit being Family Suit No. 84 of 2018 came to be filed, in which, an application below Exh.11 was filed by the opponent on the ground that the Suit deserves to be dismissed on the ground of res-judicata. The facts reveal that another Suit was filed by the opponent being Family Suit No. 77 of 2016 for restitution of conjugal rights, which came to be decreed on the same day i.e. on 28.5.2019 before the same Court. Record indicates that the applicant has filed Misc. Civil Application No. 19 of 2019 and the same was dismissed on 6.7.2019. The said order passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 19 of 2019 was challenged by the applicant by way of filing Civil Revision Application No. 397 of 2019 before this Court, which is still pending. The applicant has also challenged the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2019 passed in Family Suit No. 77 of 2016 being First Appeal No. 3359 of 2019, which came to be allowed vide order dated 2.3.2020. Mr. Trivedi further contended that the applicant pointed out to this Court that the opponent herein has already moved a Court in United Kingdom seeking divorce. The affidavit-in-reply was filed by the opponent in First Appeal No. 3359 of 2019, wherein the facts stated show that the opponent has scant regard for the truth. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that as the First Appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in Family Suit No. 77 of 2016 (for restitution of conjugal rights) came to be allowed as the divorce proceedings were pending before the Court at United Kingdom, the applicant had preferred to wait for dismissal of the said appeal. It was further contended that the applicant has already been in United Kingdom and due to pandemic Corona Virus Covid-19, she is not in a position to travel back to India. Even father of the applicant who has been her power of attorney is stuck in United Kingdom because of the pandemic. It was contended that as the Court in United Kingdom has agreed to proceed and hear the matter, which is not otherwise permissible in law, the applicant decided to forthwith file the present appeal and as the marriage between the applicant and the opponent has taken place at Bhuj on 1.1.2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals and the same is registered at Bhuj. Mr. Trivedi further contended that in matrimonial disputes, the doctrine of res-judicata is not applicable as whenever there is marital discord, new questions would arise and if a Suit is instituted for getting requisite relief, such a Suit cannot be dismissed as a reason of doctrine of res-judicata. It was contended that in the earlier Suit, nothing was decided on merits and the same came to be withdrawn in terms of the purshis submitted by the a