Doll Roseline Lakra vs Samir Kumar Murmu
2026 Latest Caselaw 2653 Jhar

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.

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/-