Condonation of delay-Sine qua-non - Sufficient cause - Acceptance of explanation furnished by a party to show sufficient cause should be the rule and the refusal an exception.

Surya Kant, J.

1. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeks condonation of delay of 248 days in filing the accompanying Letters Patent Appeal. The said appeal, in turn, has been filed against the judgment and order dated July 30, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in F.A.O. No. 3-M of 1996 whereby the respondents appeal against the decree of divorce, dated 19.10.1995, granted by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar in a divorce petition filed by the appellant herein, was allowed and the divorce petition was consequently dismissed.

2. Before adverting to the causa sine qua-non pleaded for condonation of delay, brief facts giving rise to this matrimonial dispute may be stated. 2-a. The appellant was a divorcee who had obtained divorce from his first wife on 24.12.1987. In order to solemnize second marriage, he gave an advertisement in the newspaper, The Tribune, dated 16.1.1988 and the respondent herein having responded thereto, the marriage between them was solemnized on 6.3.1988 at Ajnala as per Sikh religious rites. At that time, the appellant was employed as a Junior Engineer in Punjab State Electricity Board whereas the respondent was employed as a Teacher in a Government Primary School. The appellant and the respondent lived together as husband and wife till 20.4.1989 but no child was born out of this wedlock. As the appellants second marriage also went out of track, he instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The respondent contested the aforesaid petition and made counter-allegations. The appellant, however, did not press the allegation of cruelty against the respondent but sought dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion. The learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide his judgment and decree, dated 19.10.1995, after holding that the factum of separation with an intent to bring cohabitation permanently to an end on the part of the respondent and that too without any reasonable cause and/or consent of the appellant stood established, accepted the appellants petition and passed a decree of divorce in his favour.

2-b. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred F.A.O. No. 3-M of 1996 in this Court. It is an undisputed fact that when the above mentioned appeal came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge on July 30, 2001, the appellant remained unrepresented in person and/or through counsel. The Learned Single Judge, vide his judgment, dated July 30, 2001, allowed the respondents appeal and after setting aside the decree of divorce, dismissed the appellants divorce petition ex-parte.

2-c. Thereafter, Civil Misc. No. 5974-CII/2002 was moved by the appellant under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and order, dated July 30, 2001, of the Learned Single Judge. In the aforesaid application, the appellant averred that: (i) he had engaged Shri Nirmal Bans Singh Gujral, Advocate, as his counsel in the appeal; (ii) Shri Nirmai Bans Singh Gujral, Advocate, had been seriously ill and confined to bed since January 2001 and had not been attending the High Court since then; (iii) Shri Nirmal Bans Singh Gujral, Advocate expired on 15.9.2001 after prolonged illness; (iv) the appellant could not engage another counsel at that time as he himself had gone to the United States of America by a flight of United Airlines on 13.7.2001; (v) the appellant entered the airport in the night of 12.7.2001 and left India on 13.7.2001; (vi) the appellant had gone with a return-ticket, however, due to attack on the World Trade Centre in the USA, the flights of the United Airlines were stopped and the appellant could reach Hong Kong on 3.1.2002 only through the said Airlines from where he managed to reach India on 5.1.2002 through Kathey Pacific Airlines; (vii) the appellant was not aware of the death of his counsel and when he came to Chandigarh