IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.76 of 2024 ======================================================

Lalita Devi @ Lalita Kumari Wife of Chandeshwar Kumar Rai, D/o- Ramji Kaji, Resident of Village- Santpur, P.O. and P.S.- Valmikinagar, District- West Champaran.

... ... Appellant/s Versus Chandeshwar Kumar Rai Son of Sri Parasnath Rai @ Sachidanand Rai, Resident of Village- Majhauwa, P.O.- Bakuli, P.S.- Laukariya, District- West Champaran.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, Advocate Ms. Neha Kumari, Advocate Mr. Aprajita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Suresh Prasad Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr.Vijay Kr Singh No. 1 For the Respondent : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocate Ms. Sristi Kumari, Advocate Ms. Karnika, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

11 17-02-2026 1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the accompanying Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2022, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah in Divorce Case No. 82 of 2017.

2. As per the office report, the impugned order was passed on 04.08.2022. The limitation for filing the appeal expired on 02.11.2022. The date of application for certified copy is 16.09.2023 and the date of first presentation of the appeal is

25.01.2024. Thus, there is delay of 1 year 2 months and 13 days in filing the present Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant had no knowledge about the impugned order. It has further been submitted that the appellant is a poor lady having no independent source of income and due to unavoidable circumstances she could not obtain the certified copy of the order within time and consequently the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 4. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

5. From perusal of the Interlocutory Application, it appears that the only grounds taken for condonation of delay are that the appellant is a poor lady, had no knowledge of the order and could not obtain certified copy in time due to financial constraints. However, from the office report it transpires that the impugned order was passed on 04.08.2022 and the application for certified copy was filed only on 16.09.2023, i.e., after more than one year from the date of the order. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished for such inordinate delay in applying for the certified copy.

6. The reasons assigned in the application are general and vague in nature. No specific dates or particulars have been disclosed to explain the delay between the date of order and the date of application for certified copy.

7. In absence of any cogent and satisfactory explanation, this Court finds that no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of such inordinate delay.

8. It further appears from the anticipatory bail order brought on record that the dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature and the same has already been amicably settled between the parties and they are living together peacefully. Thus, the matrimonial dispute between the parties already stands resolved amicably.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that:

(i) No sufficient or satisfactory ground for condonation of delay has been made out by the appellant; and (ii) The matrimonial dispute between the parties has already been amicably settled.

10. Therefore, in absence of any sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the Interlocutory Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

11. Since the del