[1] 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 connected appeal. Consequently, the petition for condonation of delay is rejected.