The Allahabad High Court in the case Smt. Jyoti Verma v. Prashant Kumar Verma observed and has held that even though the opportunity of hearing before passing an order by the court is non-negotiable and the same cannot be used to defeat the ends of justice.
The court in the case held that has been negligently or deliberately caused by one party, it cannot be allowed to take advantage of the delay.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad in the case observed and has held that the delay largely attributed to the conduct of a party, he may never be allowed to turn around and to take advantage of the same even if the costs are being offered to be paid and in order to accept the same, it would be to make mockery of justice dispensation.
In the present case, the proceedings for dissolution of marriage were instituted in 2011 which were dismissed due to non-appearance of the Appellant-wife in the year 2014. Thus, in the beginning, though the Appellant-wife appeared.
The court observed that she in the case did not appear on twelve dates at the stage of evidence. The six dates were fixed for the Appellant-wife to lead evidence and the opportunity was closed in 2018, due to her non-appearance.
Therefore, the Appellant-wife moved a delay condonation application along with recall application against ex-parte decree of divorce granted in the year 2021 on July 01, 2022.
The same was rejected by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad.
The court in the case observed that even though certain medical documents had been annexed along with the application, there was no ‘real obstruction’ which prevented her from filing of the recall application over a long duration from November 2021 to July 2022.
The court stated that the previous conduct of the appellant clearly brings out her negligence or deliberate act to cause undue delay in the proceedings. Thus, the divorce case proceedings were instituted in the year 2014 and the same ought to have concluded much earlier.
The court in the case noted that the delay is being attributed to the conduct offered by the appellant wherein seeking repeated adjournments and in order to ensure her repeatedly absence from the proceedings. Thus, she caused delay of almost seven years.
The court in the case observed that even though the Court below had posted the case for ex-parte final hearing, it granted opportunity to the Appellant-wife to appear.
Therefore, the Appellant-wife continue d to skip the proceedings and cause undue delay.
The court in the case observed and has upheld the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad as there being no sufficient cause to allow the condonation of delay in filing the recall application or to recall the ex parte order itself.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that it is not for the litigant to use that pure principle applied by courts, to defeat the ends of justice.
Further, the court stated it is not uncommon in our court practices that a party tries to take undue advantage of that principle of natural justice as enforced by Courts.