LI Network
Published on: November 26, 2023 at 15:05 IST
In a recent verdict, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that while the opportunity for a hearing before passing an order is crucial, it cannot be exploited to thwart the ends of justice.
The court ruled that if delay is caused negligently or deliberately by one party, that party cannot benefit from the delay.
The bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad, stated,
“Delay largely attributed to the conduct of a party, he may never be allowed to turn around and take advantage of the same even if the costs are offered to be paid. To accept the same, it would be to make a mockery of justice dispensation.”
The case involved the dissolution of marriage proceedings initiated in 2011, dismissed in 2014 due to the non-appearance of the Appellant-wife. Subsequently, the respondent-husband initiated fresh proceedings. Despite the Appellant-wife initially appearing, she failed to do so on multiple occasions during the evidence stage. The opportunity was closed in 2018 due to her non-appearance.
The Appellant-wife filed a recall application against the closure of the opportunity to lead evidence. Despite twelve fixed dates, she failed to appear, leading to the dismissal of the application for want of prosecution. Subsequent recall applications were filed, and she remained absent, resulting in an ex-parte divorce decree in 2021.
Following this, the Appellant-wife filed a delay condonation application along with a recall application against the ex-parte divorce decree granted in 2021 on 1st July, 2022. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, rejected the applications.
The Court noted that, despite medical documents annexed with the application, there was no “real obstruction” preventing her from filing the recall application over the extended period from November 2021 to July 2022.
“The previous conduct of the appellant clearly brings out her negligence or deliberate act to cause undue delay in the proceedings… Thus she caused a delay of almost seven years.”
The Court upheld the decision of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, as there was no sufficient cause to allow the condonation of delay or to recall the ex-parte order.
“While the requirement to give an opportunity for a hearing is non-negotiable, it is not for the litigant to use that pure principle applied by courts to defeat the ends of justice,” emphasized the Court.
Case Title: Smt. Jyoti Verma v. Prashant Kumar Verma
