Inordinate delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned without a plausible explanation, reaffirming the necessity for timely assertion of rights.

JUDGMENT

C.Pratheep Kumar, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the respondent in O.P.No.537/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram, against the ex parte decree dated 13.5.2014. The respondent/wife filed the above O.P. for return of 42 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value. Since the appellant herein remained ex parte, the Family Court decreed the O.P as per the impugned judgment dated 13.5.2014. He has preferred this appeal only on 3.7.2023, more than nine years after the date of the ex parte decree. Along with the appeal he had filed C.M.Application 1/2023 praying for condoning the delay of 2586 days in filing the Mat.Appeal. The above delay has been calculated after deducting the COVID period.

2. The delay petition was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. It was contended that there is absolutely no ground for condoning the inordinate delay of above nine years in filing the Appeal.

Now the points that arise for consideration are the following :-

(i) Whether the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time ?

(ii) Whether there is sufficient ground for condoning the delay of 2586 days in filing the appeal ?

3. Heard both sides.

4. The points :- According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was in abroad and that is why he could not appear before the Court and contest the case. In C.M.Application 1/2023 also, no valid grounds or reasons are stated for the above inordinate delay in approaching the Court with this Appeal. According to the appellant, a copy application for obtaining the order could be made only on 12.6.2023 and that he has received the certified copy of the order only on 19.6.2023 and it was in the above context there occurred a delay of 2586 days.

5. However, it is to be noted that the ex parte decree was passed as early as on 13.5.2014. The petitioner has not offered any valid grounds for the delay for the period from May-2014 to June-2023. It is true that in the meantime the appellant filed two other Mat.Appeals before this court, in the year 2023, with similar reliefs, but those appeals were dismissed.

6. At the time of arguments it is revealed that in the year 2015 the appellant approached the Family Court by filing I.A.No.212/2015 and 213/2015 under Order IX rule 13 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the ex parte decree as well as for condoning the delay. However, the above applications were dismissed by the Family Court. Thereafter, in the year 2022 the petitioner has filed another I.A.No.1/2022 under Order IX rule 13 CPC and I.A.No.2/2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with a delay of 3011 days, for the very same reliefs, which were also dismissed by the Family Court. Against the said order, he had filed Mat.Appeal No.125/2023 which was also dismissed by this Court as per judgment dated 22.3.2023. Another Mat.Appeal No.280/2023 filed with similar prayer was dismissed on 8.6.2023.

7. It is true that in the order dated 8.6.2023 this Court observed that the above order will not preclude him from challenging the ex parte decree in accordance with law. It was thereafter that he filed the present Appeal after getting a fresh certified copy of the ex parte decree. For the mere reason that in the judgment dated 8.6.2023 he was permitted to challenge the ex parte decree as per law, the same will not confer on him any right to get the delay involved in this Appeal condoned as of right. He has to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than nine years in filing this Appeal.

8. As we have already noted above, in C.M.Application 1/2023, he has not given any explanation for the delay in filing the Appeal. He has only stated that he had applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 12.6.2023 and aft