Jharkhand High Court
Doll Roseline Lakra vs Samir Kumar Murmu on 2 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 73 of 2026
----
Doll Roseline Lakra ... Appellant
Versus
Samir Kumar Murmu ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Sanjana Kumari, Advocate
--------
nd Order No. 08 : Dated 2 April, 2026 I.A. No. 12749 of 2025
1. The instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing the instant appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal could not be filed within time due to professional commitments of the appellant as she is employed in Punjab National Bank, where she is required for continuous attention. Apart from her professional obligations, appellant has minor son, aged about 7 years and the appellant is solely responsible for his care and custody, who is suffering from health issues, which requires her time, attention and personal involvement in his medical care.
3. Further submission has been made the impugned order was passed on ex-parte hearing and as such if the appeal will not be heard on merit, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
4. Submission has been made that for the reasons aforesaid she could not file the appeal within time and the reasons shown by her is sufficient to condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal.
5. Ms. Sanjana Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, arguing on instruction of Mr. Abhishek Prasad, learned counsel, has vehemently opposed the delay condonation application. She has submitted that so far as the issue of ex-parte order is concerned, it is not fit to be accepted if the entire judgment will be taken into consideration wherein all efforts have been taken to secure the appearance of the appellant, even by issuing notice through electronic mode. But even then the appellant has chosen not to appear.
6. So far as the reason of being employee in Bank and taking care of male child is concerned, submission has been made that it cannot be said to come under the fold of sufficient cause, as such it is not a fit case where the delay is to be condoned.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. The explanation for delay in filing the appeal of 52 days has been explained that the appellant has to shoulder her responsibility in the bank and further she has to take care of her minor son who has no other than her to take care.
Further ground has been that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte, as such the appeal is required to be heard on merit.
9. This Court, taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the parties and reasons assigned in the delay condemnation application, is of the view that sufficient cause has been given by the appellant to condone the delay.
10. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
11. The Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 12749 of 2025 stands disposed of.
F.A. No. 73 of 2026
12. Heard learned counsel for parties.
13. Admit.
14. Call for the trial court records.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 2nd April, 2026 Alankar/-