Deorani Devi vs Neena Kushwaha
2026 Latest Caselaw 1893 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Deorani Devi vs Neena Kushwaha on 13 March, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                           F.A No.95 of 2024
                                  -----

Deorani Devi ....... ... Appellant Versus

1. Neena Kushwaha

2. Naresh Mahto ...... Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

For the Appellant : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1&2 : Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate

------

th Order No.06/Dated: 13 March, 2026 I.A No.11230 of 2024

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under section 5

of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 51 days in filing

First Appeal No.95 of 2024.

2. The reason has been assigned as under paragraph no.6 thereof taking

the ground that due to financial crunch in the stage of being

separated by the husband, the appellant-wife could not file the

appeal in time.

3. Mr. Kushal Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

nos.1 and 2 has submitted that although no objection has been filed

of the delay condonation application, but he is having objection in

condoning the delay.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the

issue of condonation of delay.

5. We are conscious that if sufficient cause is being shown by the party

concerned, the delay is to be condoned. Herein, the delay of 51 days

has been pointed out by the office and the reason shown to be

sufficient has been stated in paragraph-6 of the application that she was not in a position to prefer an appeal within the time due to

financial crunch.

6. This Court considering the aforesaid reason as stated in paragraph-6

as also considering the fact that if the delay condonation application

will be rejected, then the issue on merit will not be decided for all

time to come.

7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the delay of 51 days in

preferring the appeal is to be condoned and, accordingly, condoned.

8. I.A No.11230 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of as such.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

10. Admit.

11. Call for the Trial Court Records from the Court concerned.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Dated: 13.03.2026 Sudhir