Ningthoujam Geoffrey vs Laishram Monica Chanu on 10 March, 2026

    0
    47
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Manipur High Court

    Ningthoujam Geoffrey vs Laishram Monica Chanu on 10 March, 2026

    Author: A. Bimol Singh

    Bench: A. Bimol Singh

                  Digitally signed by
    KHOIROM KHOIROM                                                                                 Item No. 27
    BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
              SINGH
    DRA SINGH Date: 2026.03.11
              18:55:01 +05'30'
                                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                            AT IMPHAL
                                                    MC(MAT. APP.) No. 24 of 2025
    
                                Ningthoujam Geoffrey
                                                                                                 ... Applicant
                                                                 - Versus -
    
                                Laishram Monica Chanu
                                                                                              ... Respondent
    
    
                                                           B E F O R E
                                             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
                                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BIMOL SINGH
    
                                                              O R D E R
    

    [M. Sundar, CJ]
    10.03.2026

    [1] Captioned miscellaneous application has been filed seeking

    SPONSORED

    condonation of delay (CoD) qua 7 days delay in filing a statutory appeal

    under Section 19 of the ‘Family Courts Act, 1984‘ assailing judgment and

    decree dated 08.10.2025 passed in Mat. (Divorce) Case No. 132 of 2019 on

    the file of Family Court, Manipur at Lamphelpat, Imphal (‘impugned

    judgment’ for the sake of convenience).

    [2] Ms. W. Anandita, learned counsel for applicant is before this

    Court.

    [3] Mr. L. Disney, learned counsel for lone respondent in the MC

    application (Vakalatnama was filed since last listing) is before this Court on

    the video conferencing platform.

    [4] Adverting to miscellaneous application, learned counsel for

    MC applicant submits that the time consumed in coordinating with the Trial

    Page 1|2
    Court counsel and Appellate Court counsel has caused the delay. Learned

    counsel submitted that the sequence of events have been explained in

    paragraph No. 4 more particularly sub-paragraph No. (iii) thereat.

    [5] Mr. L. Disney, learned counsel for lone respondent submitted

    that the MC applicant should have been more diligent and if MC applicant

    had been diligent the delay could have been avoided.

    [6] Owing to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of

    the matter, more particularly taking into account the fact that it is a

    matrimonial proceedings and in the light of how parties are circumstanced,

    this Court is of the considered view that it is appropriate to condone the

    delay. This is more so, as the delay sought to be condoned is 7 days. This

    Court rejects the opposition of the respondent that the appellant should

    have been more diligent and this Court condones the delay. Registry is

    directed to process the main appeal, if all objections are removed and if

    appeal is otherwise in order. Registry shall assign a number and list the

    main appeal.

    [7] Captioned MC application allowed/ordered as prayed for.

    There shall be no order as to costs.

                                JUDGE               CHIEF JUSTICE
    
    Bipin
    
    
    
    
                                                                 Page 2|2
     



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here