Kiran Raj

The Gauhati High Court has allowed an application for condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against a judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Kamrup (Metro). The Court applied a justice-oriented approach, observing that the delay was not inordinate and that a liberal and pragmatic interpretation of limitation laws should be adopted, particularly in matrimonial matters. The judgment referred to various Supreme Court and High Court precedents, stating that procedural technicalities should not hinder access to justice.

The present case arose from I.A. (Civil) 2463/2024, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against the judgment dated June 12, 2024, and the order dated June 14, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court-2, Kamrup (Metro). The appeal was filed in connection with a suit for annulment of marriage.

The applicant, a resident of Meghalaya, submitted that a certified copy of the judgment was applied for on June 15, 2024, but due to logistical constraints, it was not collected until July 18, 2024. It was argued that in family court matters, parties are often required to collect certified copies in person, leading to delays in filing appeals. The applicant contended that the delay was unintentional and not caused by negligence or mala fide intent.

The respondent, opposing the application, argued that the delay was due to the applicant’s lack of diligence. It was submitted that the certified copy was ready for collection on June 15, 2024, but the applicant failed to deposit the necessary court fees and folios in time, leading to unnecessary delay. The respondent further contended that the applicant had suppressed material facts by not disclosing the actual date when the copy was made available. It was urged that limitation laws should be strictly interpreted and that condoning delays based on vague justifications would set a negative precedent.

The High Court examined the submissions and considered the established legal principles governing delay condonation applications. It referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sridevi Datla v. Union of India and Ors., which held that a lenient approach is warranted in cases involving minor delays, as opposed to inordinate delays.

The Court observed that procedural laws, including limitation statutes, are intended to advance the cause of justice, not to create undue hardship for litigants. The judgment stated: "The delay in the instant case is only 21 days, which cannot be termed inordinate. The applicant has provided an explanation regarding the collection of the certified copy, and there is no indication of deliberate negligence or mala fide intent."

The respondent’s argument regarding suppression of material facts was also addressed. The Court noted that the discrepancy in the date of collecting the certified copy did not materially affect the merits of the case. It stated: "The aspect of suppression of material facts must be examined in terms of whether it leads to undue advantage. In the present case, there is no such indication."

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, the Court held that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights and that a balanced approach must be taken in considering delay condonation requests.

The Court further noted that under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the limitation period for filing appeals was initially 30 days but was later extended to 90 days to accommodate practical difficulties faced by litigants. It observed that in some states, family court matters still follow the 30-day limitation period, creating inconsistencies in the legal framework. The Court cited decisions from the Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court, which emphasized the need for uniformity in limitation laws for matrimonial disputes.

The High Court allowed the application for condonation of delay and directed that the appeal be registered and listed for admission. The Court held: "Considering the circumstances and the legal position, we are of the view that the delay, not being inordinate and being supported by a reasonable explanation, is required to be condoned."

The delay of 21 days in filing the appeal was condoned, and the Court directed that the appeal be registered and listed for admission before the appropriate bench. The applicant was instructed to comply with all procedural requirements without any further delay. The registry was directed to verify the completeness of the appeal papers and issue necessary notices as per standard procedure. The respondent was granted liberty to raise all substantive objections at the time of hearing on admission.

The Court stated that condoning the delay does not amount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and that the appeal will be decided strictly on its own merits.

The High Court further observed that limitation laws should be interpreted in a manner that promotes substantial justice, rather than being used as a technical ground to reject genuine claims. It recorded that: "The law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure that stale claims do not burden the judicial system. However, minor delays, particularly in family law matters, should not operate as a bar to seeking legal remedies."

It was further noted that: "A balanced approach must be taken to prevent misuse of limitation laws while also ensuring that genuine litigants are not deprived of their right to appeal due to minor procedural lapses."

Case Title: XYZ
Case Number: I.A. (Civil) 2463/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Kakhato Sema

[Read/Download order]