[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Tripura High Court

Sri Kamal Kanti Ghosh vs Smt. Lipika Das (Ghosh) on 10 December, 2025

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA


                          I.A. No.01 of 2025
                      in MAT APP. No.27 of 2025


Sri Kamal Kanti Ghosh
Son of Sri Kanu Ranjan Ghosh, resident of
Poangbari, Melaghar, P.S. Melaghar, Sub-
Division- Sonamura, District- Sepahijala,
Tripura
                                                ......... Petitioner(s)

                            -Versus-
Smt. Lipika Das (Ghosh),
wife of Sri Kamal Kanti Ghosh, care of
Ganesh Ch. Das, resident of Khilpara
(Bhangarpar), P.S. R.K. Pur, Sub-Division-
Udaipur, District- Gomati Tripura, daughter
of late Sankar Chandra Dey of Bramhabari,
Udaipur, P.S. R.K. Pur, Sub-Division-
Udaipur, District- Gomati Tripura
                                               ........ Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Pranabashis Majumder, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)        :    None
Date of hearing              :    19.11.2025
Date of delivery of          :    10.12.2025
Judgment & Order
                                    YES   NO
Whether fit for reporting    :            √

HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

JUDGMENT & ORDER

This petition has been filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condoning the delay of 485

days in preferring the connected appeal No.MAT App.27 of 2025,

against the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2024 passed by

learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District in T.S

(Divorce) 59 of 2019 and the related decree thereof, whereby

the petition of the petitioner for divorce on the ground of cruelty

and desertion, was dismissed.

[2] Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that after the judgment was passed on

30.03.2024, the petitioner was unaware of the result of the said

proceeding. Only in the first week of June, 2024, he came to

know about the outcome of the said proceeding. He then applied

for the certified copy of the same on 13.06.2024 and collected it

on 06.08.2024. Thereafter, he could not take necessary steps

immediately due to his prolonged illness and also for illness of

his aged parents and according to him, this is his prime cause of

delay for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period.

Some medical papers relating to the treatment of the petitioner

and his father are also submitted by a separate affidavit.

[3] We have considered the submissions of Mr. P.

Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the

documents as placed by the petitioner in record. We are not at

all satisfied with the explanations as offered by the petitioner for

condoning such a long period of delay of almost 500 days. The

reasons for our such disapproval and dissatisfaction are as

follows:

Firstly, that the judgment was passed on

30.03.2024, whereas he collected the information about

the outcome of that proceeding only in the first week of

June, 2024 when already the period for filing the appeal

was over. No satisfactory explanation is coming forward

from the side of the petitioner for such delay. Though he

stated that due to his illness he could not contact with his

advocate at that time but no paper relating to his such

illness and treatment are submitted by him.

Secondly, that it is stated by the petitioner that for

his prolonged illness and illness of his father, he could not

take proper steps for filing the appeal after coming to

Agartala but the papers relating to their treatment as

submitted by him indicate that he only underwent some

pathological tests between August, 2025 to October, 2025

at Sonamura itself, and attended the OPD, Sonamura Sub-

Divisional Hospital once in September, 2025. Nothing

could be produced by him to show that he was seriously ill

on any occasion during the entire period of 485 days which

had incapacitated him from filing the appeal in time.

Regarding the plea of illness of his father and consequent

treatment received by him, some documents relating to

his treatment during the period from 2021-2023 are

submitted. Said treatment was received by him much prior

to the date of pronouncement of the impugned judgment.

As a matter of recent origin, only one pathological test

report and one bed head ticket of his father regarding his

treatment in November, 2025 i.e. after filing of the appeal

were produced which, therefore, cannot also be used by

him to offer the explanation for the delay.

Thirdly, according to him, he collected all necessary

documents in complete form in June, 2025 and handed

over the same to his advocate but ultimately he swore the

affidavit on 27th October, 2025 and the connected appeal

was then filed. The delay of more than three months

occurred in this process and the said delay is also not

satisfactorily explained. It appears to us that he was all

along negligent in pursuing his own cause in preferring the

appeal.

[4] Law is fairly settled that as a matter of generosity,

the delay cannot be condoned without having shown sufficient

reasons for such delay. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court

in case of Union of India & another v. Jahangir Byramji

Jeejeebhoy (D) through his L.Rs., 2024 SCC Online SC

489, has held that when it is decided that a party has lost his

right to have the matter considered on merits because of his

own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-

deliberate delay and in such circumstances, he cannot be heard

to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as

against the technical considerations. The relevant paragraph

nos.26 and 27 of said decision are extracted below:

"26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the „Sword of Damocles‟ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants."

[5] Again in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar

Choudhury, [Special Leave Petition(C) Diary No.48636 of

2024 decided on 29.11.2024], above said principle has been

reiterated by the Apex Court. It is also further observed in said

decision that the discretion to condone the delay has to be

exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstance of each

case and that, the expression "sufficient cause‟ cannot be

liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides

is attributed to the party.

[6] Considering all these aspects, we are not at all

satisfied with the explanations as offered by the petitioner in the

petition for condoning such delay of 485 days in preferring the