JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

This Matrimonial Appeal arises out of order dated 24.12.2011 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Rourkela in C.P.No.114 of 2001 rejecting an Application for condonation of delay (Misc. Case No.23 of 2011) in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 9, CPC to restore the Civil Proceeding, which was dismissed for default.

2. Civil Proceeding No.114 of 2001 was filed before the learned Judge Family Court, Rourkela by one Smt. Shobha Singh and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh (appellants herein) to get a declaration that the Appellant No.1 is the legally married wife of Appellant No.2. The pleadings in CP No.114 of 2001 reveal that the appellants got married on 24.02.1999 as per the Hindu customs and rites at village Kumei in Jahanabad district of Bihar. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children, a son and a daughter. In the year 1999, while serving at Rourkela, appellant No.2 developed acquaintance with the respondent who was a co-worker. Taking advantage of the situation, the respondent tried to entice appellant No.2 to develop relationship to which appellant No.2 did not succumb. Having failed in all her attempts respondent, namely, Rajana Kumari Singh filed CP No.188 of 2000 to declare her as the legally married wife of appellant No.2. She contended therein that her marriage with the appellant No.2 was solemnized on 21.03.1999 in Dumerta Kali temple at Bandamunda observing Hindu rites and customs. Soon after both parties consummated their marriage and stayed at quarters of appellant No.2 at Bandamunda. On the next day of marriage, the respondent was sent to her parental home on the plea that she would be taken back subsequently after convincing the parents of appellant No.2, which never happened. When the respondent came to know that the appellant No.2 had married to appellant No.1, she came up with CP No.188 of 2000 for the aforesaid relief.

3. During pendency of CP No.188 of 2000, the appellants filed CP No.114 of 2001 for the relief stated above before the Judge Family Court, Rourkela. It is contended that though the appellant No.1 had filed petition to implead herself as a party in CP No.188 of 2000 (filed by the respondent), the said application was rejected by the Judge Family Court, Rourkela on 19.09.2001 on the finding that impletion of appellant No.1 as a party to CP No.188 of 2000 would not be helpful in deciding the controversy between the parties therein. C.P. No.188 of 2000 was finally decided on 07.10.2002 holding the respondent to be the legally married wife of appellant No.2. Assailing the said judgment, appellant No.2 preferred MATA No.2 of 2003 before this Court. This Court, upon hearing the parties allowed MATA No.2 of 2003 on 16.10.2003, set aside the judgment passed in CP No.188 of 2000 and remanded the matter back to learned Judge Family Court, Rourkela to decide the same afresh giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. Upon remand, learned Judge Family Court, Rourkela proceeded with the matter in compliance with the direction of this Court and vide judgment dated 21.04.2004 dismissed CP No.188 of 2000 holding that no marriage between the appellant No.2 and the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs as claimed by the respondent therein.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, respondent preferred MATA No.15 of 2004 before this Court, which was disposed of by judgment dated 05.11.2009 setting aside the judgment passed in CP No.188 of 2000. Being aggrieved by the said judgment in MATA No.15 of 2004, the appellant No.2 preferred RVWPET No.188 of 2010. In the said Review Petition, the appellant No.1 joined the appellant No.2. During final hearing of the Review Petition, i.e., on 18.02.2011, the respondent produced a copy of order dated 11.03.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in CP No.114 of 2001 dismissing the CP for default. From the copy of the said order, the appellants came to know about the fate of their Civil Proceeding No.114 o