IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay in appeals, especially when the delay is short and sufficient cause is shown.

JUDGMENT :

(S.K. Medhi, J.)

The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act , 1963 for condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the connected appeal against the judgment dated 12.06.2024 and order dated 14.06.2024 passed in F.C.(Civil) No. 427/2011 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court -2, Kamrup (Metro).

2. We have heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant. We have also heard Ms. P. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Ms. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the delay in the instant case is only 21 days and the reasons for the same have been adequately pleaded in the application, more specifically paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 thereof. It is submitted that the instant appeal has been preferred qua a judgment passed by the learned Family Court in a suit filed by the applicant for annulment of the marriage. It is submitted that though the impugned judgment was passed on 14.06.2024 and the certified copy was applied for on 15.06.2024, due to the fact that the applicant is ordinarily residing in the State of Meghalaya, he could not come to collect the certified copy prior to 18.07.2024. She has submitted that in matters pertaining to the Family Court, the parties are required to present in person for collecting certified copies. She has also clarified that the pleadings in paragraph 14 of the application are not properly worded and the actual meaning is that the certified copy could be collected on 18.07.2024.

4. By relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2021) 5 SCC 321 the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is a distinction of cases where the delay is not inordinate and cases where the delay is of few days and accordingly, the approach of the Court should be slightly different. She accordingly submits that the delay be condoned and the application be allowed.

5. Per contra, Ms. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the application suffers from suppression of material facts. It is submitted that while the certified copy was applied on 15.06.2024 and the same date was notified for requisite stamps and folios, the same was deposited only on 18.07.2024 and thereby the negligence of the applicant becomes apparent. She has submitted that the judgment being of 12.06.2024, it is from that date from which limitation would start. She submits that in paragraph 14 of the application, misleading statements have been made.

6. The learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the delay is required to be explained not from the date of expiry of limitation but from the date when the limitation starts and in this connection, she has relied upon the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ram Kumar Choudhury reported in 2024 INSC 932 . In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP filed by the State against an order whereby delay was refused to be condoned.

7. She has also relied upon the case of Balwant Singh vs. Jagadish Singh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 685 wherein the aspect of a party approaching the Court without clean hands has been highlighted. In the said case it was held that no sufficient causes could be shown. Reliance has also been made to the case of All India EPF Staffs Federation vs. Union of India [SLP (C) No. 13330/ 2024 Judgment dated 25.06.2024] to contend that suppression of materials facts has to be dealt with harshly. She has also relied upon the case of H. Guruswamy and Ors. A. Krishnaiah reported in 2025 INSC 53 to contend that while considering a delay condonation application, the merit of the main case is not required to be based upon. Reliance has also been placed upon the case of Pathapati Subba Red