Harilal, J.
The appellant was the 1st respondent in O.P.No.2067/12 on the file of the Family court, Thrissur. The above original petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein for divorce under section 10(1)(i) of the Divorce Act. The original petition was allowed ex parte in the absence of the petitioner before the court below. Though notice had been duly served on the respondents in this Mat.appeal as well as in the petition to condone the delay occurred in filing this appeal, they have not chosen to enter appearance before this Court either in the delay petition or in the appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, though, the appellant had engaged a counsel for appearing before the court below, he has not entered appearance on the day when the case was posted for hearing ; So also, he has not informed the appellant about the ex parte decree which Mat.Appeal No.592 of 2014 2 was passed in his absence. After 32 days, she came to know that her counsel failed to appear before the court and consequently a decree was passed ex parte against her. Immediately, she applied for a copy of the impugned judgment and decree, and after obtaining the same, she approached the lawyer at Ernakulam and filed this appeal challenging the ex parte decree. There is no willful negligence or laches from the part of the appellant in causing the delay. It was so happened due to the lapse from the part of the counsel alone.
3. Going by the impugned judgment, it is seen that on 24.2.2014, when the case was posted for hearing neither the appellant nor her counsel appeared before the court and no contra evidence was adduced in the case. So, the court below was constrained to pass the impugned ex parte decree against her. Going by the sequences of events narrated in the impugned judgment, we are unable to find fault with the court below in passing the ex parte decree, in the absence of the appellant and her counsel.
4. But we are inclined to take a lenient view by Mat.Appeal No.592 of 2014 3 providing another opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter on merits, in view of the legal position settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of condoning the delay. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ should be considered with pragmatic and justice oriented approach, rather than technical detection of sufficient causes for explaining delay. Adjudication of a lis on merits is desirable than disposal on technicalities.
5. In the above view, the impugned order will stand set aside and the court below is directed to restore the original petition on the files and proceed in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the court below on 15.1.2015.
Mat.Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge Sd/-
K.HARILAL, Judge.