Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Rebeka Murmu - Appellant
Versus
Suruj Kisku, wife of late Lakhiram Marandi – Respondent
F.A. No.93 of 2025
Decided On : 11-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
The law underscores that ignorance of judgment and lack of diligence do not warrant condonation of significant delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation periods.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 25 - Appeal against Family Court’s dismissal of guardianship suit - Appeal was barred by limitation, with a delay of 477 days - Delay condonation application was submitted but found lacking sufficient cause due to lack of knowledge of judgment. (Paras 1, 5, 23, 25)
(B) Law of Limitation - The principle that statutes of limitation are designed to prevent long-dormant claims, emphasizing the importance of reasonable diligence by litigants. (Paras 9, 12, 19)
(C) Sufficient Cause - The court underscored that the absence of bona fides and negligence negate claims for condonation of delay, reiterating that delay applications must meet stringent standards. (Paras 14, 20, 25)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought to challenge the Family Court’s dismissal of her guardianship claim, contending ignorance of the judgment that led to substantial delay in filing the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the delay condonation application, stating the reasons provided were insufficient to justify the delay.
Issues: The principal issues revolved around whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the reasons given by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an appellant's lack of knowledge and failure to act diligently does not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay, particularly when extensive negligence is evident.
Result: Delay condonation application dismissed; appeal dismissed.
Order :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant first appeal, under Section 19(1) of FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, is directed against the order/judgment dated 27.02.2023 and decree dated 13.03.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur in Original Suit No.110 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the appellant under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 has been dismissed.
I.A. No. 4515 of 2025
2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 477 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 4515 of 2025 has been filed for condoning such delay.
3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 477 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. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned by allowing the Interlocutory Application on the basis of grounds shown therein treating the same to be sufficient.
5. The ground for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned at paragraph 4 of the interlocutory application is that passing of the order/judgment dated 27.02.2023 and decree dated 13.03.2023 by learned family court was not within the knowledge of the applicant/appellant and as soon as the applicant came to know about the judgment in the month of June 2024, she contacted her advocate and after getting opinion from her advocate the applicant/appellant filed first appeal before this Court on 19.07.2024 without any delay, for ready reference, paragraph 4 of the instant interlocutory application is being quoted hereunder as :-
“4. That the appellant states that after passing of the order dated judgment dated 27.02.2023 and decree dated 13.03.2023 by learned family court appellant was not aware of the judgment, the applicant came to know about the judgment in the month of June 2024 after knowing the same petitioner contacted his advocate and after getting opinion from his advocate the applicant filed first appeal before this Hon'be court on 19.07.2024 then the appellant came to know about the order and asked for opinion.”
6. Further, at paragraph – 5 of the interlocutory application it has been mentioned that after taking opinion on 17.06.2024 the appellant arranged the professional fee and got the first appeal drafted on 17.07.2024 and thereafter on 19.07.2024 the first appeal was filed before this Hon’ble Court without any further delay.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant 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 is 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, wherein, it has been said that
