Gauhati High Court
Sri Manash Sarma vs Smti. Maitreyee Sabhapandit on 6 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010239832019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/4064/2019
SRI MANASH SARMA
S/O- LATE MUKUNDA SARMA, R/O- FLAT NO. 102, BLOCK NO. A1,
SANTIGRAM, HOUSING COMPLEX, BELTOLA CHARIALI JAYANAGAR,
GUWAHATI- 781022, P.O. KHANAPARA, P.S. BASISTHA, DIST.- KAMRUP
METRO, ASSAM AND AT PRESENT RESIDING AT NONG MALKI ROAD,
SHILLONG- 793001, P.O. AND P.S. SHILLONG, EAST KHASI HILLS DISTRICT,
MEGHALAYA.
VERSUS
SMTI. MAITREYEE SABHAPANDIT
W/O- SRI MANASH SARMA, D/O- SRI HAREN SARMA, R/O- FLAT NO. 102,
BLOCK NO. A1, SANTIGRAM, HOUSING COMPLEX, BELTOLA CHARIALI
JAYANAGAR, GUWAHATI- 781022, P.O. KHANAPARA, P.S. BASISTHA, DIST.-
KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L C DEY
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. P R MAHANTA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 06-05-2022
Page No.# 2/3
Suman Shyam, J
Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S.R. Gogoi,
learned counsel for the opposite party.
This I.A. has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for
condonation of delay of 136 days in preferring the connected appeal preferred against the
judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court No. I, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 157/2018 directing the
applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 8000/- as maintenance pendente lite and cost of Rs.
10,000/-.
By referring to the statements made in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the I.A. Mr. Das,
learned counsel for the applicant submits that his client was prevented from presenting
the appeal within time due to medical reasons. In support of the statements made in the
aforesaid paragraphs the applicant has also produced medical documents including
certificate from the Doctor, which goes to show that he was suffering from various
ailments during the relevant period.
Opposing the submission of the applicant's counsel, Mr. Gogoi, on the other hand,
has contended that the applicant has appeared before the learned court below on atleast
02 occasions during the aforesaid period and therefore, his explanation cannot be treated
as bonafide. On such count, Mr. Gogoi has prayed for dismissal of the I.A.
Reverting to the above, Mr. Das, however, contends that although his client had
appeared before the trial court on 02 occasions, yet, immediately thereafter he had to go
outside the State for medical treatment. According to Mr. Das merely because the
applicant had appeared before the court it cannot be a ground to presume that he was
not suffering from serious ailments.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides
and have also gone through the materials available on record. From the documents
annexed to the I.A. we find that the applicant has produced evidence to show that he was
Page No.# 3/3
suffering from various ailments during the relevant period of time. On such count, the
applicant has also stated that he could not obtain the certified copy of the order nor could
he instruct his lawyer. Moreover, the applicant has also stated that he had made an
attempt to resolve the issue amicably with his estranged wife, which has also resulted in a
few days delay in presenting the appeal.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the explanation
furnished by the applicant, we find that this is a fit case where the delay of 136 days
deserves to be condoned. In other words, we are satisfied that the applicant was
prevented by sufficient cause from approaching this Court within time. As such the delay
of 136 days is hereby condoned.
I.A. stands allowed.
Office to register the connected appeal and list for admission after a week.
JUDGE JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
