Xxxx Xxxx vs Xxxx Xxxx
2023 Latest Caselaw 2592 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010270202022




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/113/2023

            XXXX XXXX
            S/O MAHINDRA DAS,
            RESIDENT OF DARANGA MELA, PS TAMULPUR, PO DARANGA MELA,
            DIST BAKSA (BTAD) ASSAM. 781360
            VERSUS
            XXXX XXXX
            D/O SRI KHANIN DAS,
            RESIDENT OF BILARTARIHATI, NAKHANDAPAR BARPETA TOWN, WARD
            NO. 2, PO AND PS BARPETA, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781301

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B K BHAGAWATI

Advocate for the Respondent :




                                   BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                           ORDER

19.06.2023 (M. Zothankhuma, J.)

1. Heard Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that there is a delay of 147 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2022 passed in T.S. (M) F.C. No.21/2019, by the learned Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta, granting decree of divorce and directing the applicant husband to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the respondent Page No.# 2/2

wife.

2. No one appears for the respondent wife, even though notice had been issued to the respondent on 22.02.2023.

3. Office Note dated 15.06.2023 states that unserved notice had been received in respect of the sole respondent and that she had refused to receive the said notice.

4. The application for condonation of delay states that after the impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2022 was passed in T.S.(M) F.C. No.21/2019, the applicant preferred a review petition, vide Misc.(J) F.C. No.05/2022, which was dismissed on 21.11.2022. Thereafter the applicant came to Guwahati in the month of December, 2022 and engaged counsels for preferring an appeal. In the process, a delay of 147 days had occurred. He accordingly submits that the delay being unintentional and due to the reasons stated above, the delay of 147 should be condoned.

5. On considering the grounds for the delay, we are of the view that sufficient cause for the delay has been made out. Accordingly, the delay of 147 days is condoned.

6. Registry is directed to register the appeal and list the same after a week.

7. I.A. is accordingly disposed off.

                           JUDGE                         JUDGE

Comparing Assistant