IMPORTANT POINT
The principle that a party must provide a sufficient and bona fide explanation for any delay in filing an appeal, particularly when the party is educated in law, is crucial for the court's discretion in condoning such delays.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 09.09.2022 and decree signed on 15.09.2022 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 88 of 2022 filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed.

I.A.No.1530 of 2024

2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 217 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.1530 of 2024.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 217 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit.

4. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application that he is a dental surgeon and was not fully aware of the process of law and he got the certified copy of impugned judgment and decree on 10.04.2023 and after procuring the certified copy of the order, the appellant found that his petition for keeping the order of divorce in abeyance till the joint loan liability is addressed was rejected with some observations which the bank refused to accept and thereafter the present First Appeal was filed, which caused delay of 217 days in preferring the appeal.

5. The appellant in-person, therefore, has prayed to condone the delay and has submitted that the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application is sufficient to condone the delay.

6. The affidavit-in-objection to the Interlocutory Application though has not been filed but learned counsel for the respondent-wife has vehemently opposed the delay condonation application based on the averments made in the counter affidavit wherein opposing the prayer for condonation of delay, the impugned judgment and decree of divorce was well within the knowledge of the appellant as the judgment was passed in presence of parties and further no other ground has been given. It has further been stated that it is settled principle of law that delay of each day is to be explained but in the instant case the appellant has failed to explained the delay. It has further been submitted that the appellant has also obtained the degree of Law, therefore, the ground which has been taken that he was not fully aware of law is not sustainable. Therefore, prayer has been made that the instant appeal be dismissed on the ground of delay itself.

7. We have heard the appellant in-person and learned counsel for the respondent on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition, as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis.

9. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351.

10. The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, (1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wh