Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Shyam Sundar Agarwal Son of Kali Charan Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Ruby Kumari Wife of Shyam Sundar Agrawal – Respondent
First Appeal No.104 of 2024
Decided On : 15-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, Advocate, Mr. Karishma Kumari, Advocate
Delay in filing an appeal can only be condoned if sufficient cause is shown, which must not involve negligence or inaction by the party.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Appeal against dismissal of divorce suit - Delay of 358 days in filing appeal; application for condonation of delay submitted - Reason supplied insufficient to establish sufficient cause as required under law - Cited legal principles on sufficient cause and negligence highlight need for diligent action by litigants - Court finds no grounds to condone delay, dismisses application. (Paras 1, 10, 18, 20, 21)
(B) Sufficient cause - Definition of 'sufficient cause' as a ground for condoning delay must not impute negligence or lack of bona fides to the litigant - Court must exercise discretion judiciously based on facts, with liberal interpretation where appropriate. (Paras 9, 11, 13, 14)
(C) Court reinforces the principle that the law of limitation is strict and delays should be addressed with due regard to the rights accrued to other parties - Mere cause for delay, without stringent proof of diligence or absence of negligence, is inadequate. (Para 12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal regarding delay. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments for and against condoning delay. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of sufficient cause definitions. (Para 3 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. legal standards for condoning delay. (Para 7 , 20) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal and application. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section19(1) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , is directed against the judgment dated 06.02.2023 passed in Original Suit No.249 of 2021 by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Hazaribagh, by which, the Suit filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, has been dismissed on contest.
I.A.No.4540 of 2024
2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 358 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.4540 of 2024.
3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 358 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. Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the cause has been shown at paragraph-6 of the instant interlocutory application said to be sufficient cause, as per the appellant and as such, it is a fit case where the delay in filing the instant appeal may be condoned.
5. While, on the other hand, Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, learned counsel for the respondent, who has appeared on being noticed by filing Vakalatnama, has vehemently opposed the issue of condoning the delay on the basis of sufficient cause said to be there as per the pleading made at paragraph-6 of the instant interlocutory application.
6. According to him, an explanation which has been furnished at paragraph-6 of the application, cannot be said to be sufficient cause, reason being that, it has only been stated therein that the time has been consumed in obtaining the relevant documents and expenditure which was to be incurred in filing the appeal.
7. It has been submitted that the law is well settled that the delay can be condoned in filing the appeal, subject to availability of sufficient cause if has been shown on behalf of the litigant concerned but the statement made at paragraph-6, cannot be said to be sufficient cause as stated in the interlocutory application, is fit to be rejected.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties particularly the reason which has been shown in the instant interlocutory application for the purpose of condoning the delay of 358 days.
9. This Court, before appreciating the reason which has been shown in the instant interlocutory application, needs to refer the definition of “sufficient cause”.
10. It also requires to refer herein that what is the meaning of ‘sufficient cause’. The consideration of meaning of ‘sufficient cause’ has been made in Basawaraj & Anr. Vrs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [ (2013) 14 SCC 81 ], wherein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraphs 9 to 15 hereunder:-
“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the fa
