IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No. 154 of 2022
Sadananda Sahoo ..... Appellant
Mr. C.R. Sahoo, Adv.
Vs.
Pujarini Sahoo ..... Respondent
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
17.03.2023 Order No.
07. I.A. No. 174 of 2022
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and also Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.
3. This is an application for condoning the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 from the judgment dated 11.03.2022 delivered in Civil Proceeding No. 134 of 2020.
4. As the causes assigned in the original application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not satisfy us, we granted liberty to the Appellant to file a better application detailing the causes Page 1 of 4 which prevented him from filing the appeal in time. Such additional pleadings have been filed by I.A. No. 277 of 2022. According to the appellant, after the ex-parte judgment was passed, he was not immediately given any information. After he received the information regarding the judgment, he had applied for the certified copies without much delay. Then, he had approached the counsel for preparation of the appeal.
5. In the meanwhile, the appellant had filed one application for restoration of the suit under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. But the said application was rejected. After the rejection, he had filed the appeal.
6. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has categorically stated that the Appellant has not come with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. According to him, the notice was served on the Appellant and he appeared. Later on, he deliberately absented from proceeding. His conduct has been reflected in the judgment dated 11.03.2022. That apart, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has submitted that the causes as assigned are not sufficient to condone the delay. Some of these causes even cannot be believed.
7. We have taken note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Since the dispute is a matrimonial dispute and the Page 2 of 4 delay is not inordinate, we take a liberal approach to condone the said delay, however, subject to payment of Rs.2000/- to the Respondent. Such costs shall be paid within seven days from today. After payment, the receipt shall be filed in the Registry.
8. In terms of the above, this application stands allowed and disposed of.
(S.Talapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge I.A. No. 277 of 2022
08. 1. In view of the order passed today in I.A. No. 174 of 2022, this applications stands disposed of.
(S.Talapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge MATA No. 154 of 2022
09. 1. In view of the order passed today in I.A. No. 174 of 2022, this Page 3 of 4 appeal shall be listed on 31.03.2023.
(S.Talapatra) Judge Sukanta (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 4 of 4