Sapna Devi Vs Ravinder Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Sapna Devi Vs Ravinder Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Sapna Devi vs Ravinder Kumar

CMP(M) No. 1626 of 2024

16.12.2024 Present:

Mr.B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr.Ram Kumar, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.

M/s Yug Singhal and Hitender Verma, Advocates, for the respondent.

CMP(M) No.1626 fo 2024

This application has been filed for condonation of 25 days’ delay in filing the appeal.

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant-appellant that limitation period for filing an appeal, under the Family Courts Act, as provided under Section 19 of the Act, is 30 days.

It has been further submitted that applicantappellant was provided a Legal Aid Counsel, for defending her case in the Family Court and the said Advocate was representing her. However, for absence of the Advocate as well as the appellant (respondent before the Family Court), she was proceeded ex parte on 24.07.2024, on which date evidence of the respondent-husband (petitioner before Family Court) was recorded, arguments were heard and petition was decided.

It has been further submitted on behalf of the applicant-appellant that after having knowledge of passing the aforesaid order, certified copy thereof was applied on 17.08.2024, which was attested and received on 20.08.2024.

It has further been submitted that after receiving the certified copy of impugned order, applicant-appellant had approached Mr.Abhishek Thakur, Advocate, in the High Court on 24.08.2024, but, the counsel was under the impression that first appeal against order can be filed within 60 days, and this wrong impression was due to reason that limitation for filing first appeal against order passed in Employees Compensation Act is 60 days. In this bonafide impression, appeal was prepared and filed on 21.09.2024. But the Registry raised the objection that appeal was time barred as it was to be filed within 30 days, whereupon applicant-appellant was called to Shimla and present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was prepared and filed on 05.10.2024.

To substantiate the aforesaid plea, affidavits of Mr.Abhishek Thakur, Advocate as well as the applicant-appellant, have been filed alongwith this application.

It has been submitted that applicant had approached the counsel immediately after receiving the certified copy on 24.08.2024 on 27^th day, i.e. before expiry of limitation period. But for wrong bonafide impression of the counsel, appeal was filed before expiry of 60 days, i.e. on 54^th day on 21.09.2024.

Application for condonation of delay has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that day-to-day delay is

required to be explained, and further that, an Advocate cannot be said to be under wrong impression with respect to limitation period.

After taking into consideration entire material placed before us and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that though appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation, but cause for delay, as stated, appears to be true and genuine. Accordingly, delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Application is allowed and disposed of.

FAO No. of 2024 [FAO(FC)38924/24)

Notice. Mr.Yug Singhal, learned counsel,

appears, waives and accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondent, and seeks time to file Power of Attorney. Be filed within a week.

List for consideration on 26.12.2024.

CMP No. of 2024(CMPST 38895/24)

Notice in the aforesaid terms.

Reply, as prayed, be filed within a week

positively.

List for consideration alongwith main appeal

on the aforesaid date.

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

December 16, 2024

(Purohit)