[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jogsingh vs Smt. Bhamridevi (2026:Rj-Jd:7024-Db) on 9 February, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:7024-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3446/2025
Jogsingh S/o Nensingh, Aged About 40 Years, Badanwadi, Tehsil
Ahor, District Jalore, Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Bhamridevi W/o Jogsingh, D/o Mithusingh, R/o Botiyawas,
Ahor Tehsil Ahor, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Shobha Prabhakar
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order (Oral)
09/02/2026
Per: Arun Monga, J
1. Appellant seeks condonation of delay of 603 days in filing the
accompanied appeal. For the reasons stated hereinafter, this is not
a fit case where discretion to condone the delay ought to be
exercised.
2. Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated
12.12.2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jalore in Civil
Misc. Case No.35/2021, vide which the learned Family court had
rejected the divorce petition of appellant filed under Section 13 of
Hindu Marriage Act.
3. The explanation for seeking condonation is totally mechanical
and there seems to be no application of mind. No specific details
or day to day explanation have been given as to why the matter
remained pending.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:51:56 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7024-DB] (2 of 4) [CMA-3446/2025]
4. For ready reference paras No.1 to 3 of the application are as
below:
"1. That the Appellant has filed a DB Civil Misc. Appeal before the
Hon'ble Court and has every chance of success.
2. That after passing of the impugned order, the Appellant was not having
any information regarding the proceedings before the Court, as a result of
which the petitioner came to know about the impugned order in March 2024.
He contacted his counsel on the very same date, and the certified copy was
applied for by the counsel of the petitioner, and the same was received on
20.03.2024. Thus, the Appellant could not make any contact with his counsel
regarding challenging the impugned order. The delay that occurred in filing
the DB CMA was not made willfully or deliberately, but it was a result of
bona fide reasons.
3. That the appellant has a meritorious case in his favour, which, in the
interest of justice, should not be thrown away on the ground of delay alone.
Therefore, it is submitted that a lenient view may kindly be taken and the
appeal be treated within limitation."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the delay in
filing the accompanied appeal is bona fide and unintentional for
the reasons stated in the application.
6. Having gone through the contents of the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, it
transpires that not only a completely beaten up stand has been
taken therein justifying the delay in the most mechanical and
nonchalant manner, but, even otherwise, its lacks the necessary
particulars.
7. No doubt in deserving case, Courts are liberal to grant
indulgence but instant is not a case of such kind.
8. We are unable to persuade ourselves with the reasons given
in the application. It is a settled position in law that delay confers
crystallized rights in favour of a litigant by virtue of law of
limitation. Delay and latches since result in freezing of the vested
rights in a party, which seeks enforcement of the same, the said
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:51:56 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7024-DB] (3 of 4) [CMA-3446/2025]
right cannot be taken away unless there is a sufficient cause
shown by the party seeking condonation of delay.
9. Qua the condonation of delay, reference may be had to Apex
Court judgment in Ramlal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields
Ltd.1 Relevant extract of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"7. In construing Section 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two
important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration
of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise
to a right in favour of decree holder to treat the decree as binding
between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation
prescribed has expired the decree holder has obtained a benefit under
the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge and this
legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time
should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration
which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay
is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit
the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the
Court in order that judicial power and discretion in trial behalf
should be exercised to advance substantial justice."
10. Reference may also be had to another Apex Court judgment
in Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat,2 wherein it is
observed thus:-
".....it is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of
limitation for filing an appeal, but when it allows limitation to expire
and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the
sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or
circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible to
file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the
expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be
events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which
may further delay the filing of the appeal, but that the limitations has
been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced
to a cause arising within the period of limitation. In the present case,
there was no such cause, and the High Court erred in condoning the
delay."
11. In the aforesaid premise, since the appeal is not
maintainable on the ground of delay, no ground to hear the main
appeal on merits is made out.
12. Both, the application for condonation of delay as well as
main appeal are dismissed.
1 1962 AIR (SC) 361
2 AIR 1981 SC 733
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:51:56 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7024-DB] (4 of 4) [CMA-3446/2025]
13. Any other application, if pending, shall also stand disposed
of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
20-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:51:56 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
