Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—By the judgment dated 23.2.2012 learned Family Court, Bhilwara dismissed the application preferred under Section 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:-

“1. The CMA is time barred. Appln. for delay condonation not filed.

2. CF not affixed on Appeal, order, decree & power.

3. Welfare stamp not affixed.

4. Law point incorrect. It is CMA u/S. 19 Family Court Act & it is D.B. matter.”

2. Despite several opportunities no care was taken to remove the defects. After a lapse of more than two years and five months the counsel for the appellant choose to remove the defects No.2, 3 and 4 on 11.12.2014. An application as per provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal with following grounds :-

“2. That in the above case the final arguments were heard by learned trial court on 06.02.2012 and next date was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 14.02.2012. On 14.02.2012 the judgment was not ready for pronouncement hence a next date was fixed on 23.02.2012.

3. That on 23.02.2012 the applicant-appellant could not appear before the learned court below, hence he have no knowledge of fate of his case. As and when he came to know that his application under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed then he applied for certified copy of the judgment. After obtaining the copy of judgment some time was spent in making arrangement of funds for filing appeal before this Hon'ble Court. The applicant-appellant could not managed the money to bear the expenditure for filing this appeal within time.”

3. 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.

4. 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 Section 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.

5. In the case in hand the application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is based on quite a vague ground. The reason extended for causing delay is not at all a reason to consider the application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant failed to provide minimum details in support of the ground taken. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant or his counsel were not at all diligent in pursuing the appeal. The appeal was presented in the month of July, 2012 but no care was taken to remove very minor defects till December, 2014. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act too was filed in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document