MC 1505/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE JUSTICE C.R. SARMA (Amitava Roy,J) By these applications, in essence, the applicant (appellant in MAT Appeal No.36 /2001) seeks the restoration of the aforementioned appeal, which has since been dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.03.2010. We have heard Mr. K. Basar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. B. Das, le arned counsel for the opposite party. By Misc. Case No.1505/2010, the delay in filing the accompanying Misc. Case No.1 506/2010 for restoration of the aforementioned appeal has been sought to be expl ained. The applicant had instituted the above appeal against the judgment and o rder dated 30.06.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Barpeta in DTS Case No. 3/99 granting a decree for dissolution of marriage in his favour. The appea l has been, principally preferred against the direction contained in the aforeme ntioned judgment and order requiring the applicant-husband to pay an amount of R s.1,000.00 per month as permanent alimony to the opposite party-wife U/s.25 of t he Hindu Marriage Act, 19955(hereinafter for short referred to as the Act) from July,2001. The applicant has averred that though the appeal was listed for hearing in the c ause list dated 15.03.2010 for a period till 30.04.2010, on 18.03.2010 when the same was called upon for hearing, there was none to represent him. According to him, his conducting counsel Mr. K. Basar for personal reasons was out of statio n and having fallen ill, did not reach Guwahati in time and therefore was render ed unable to represent him in the appeal on that date i.e. on 18.03.2010. The d elay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal has been sought to be explained on the ground of time taken to obtain the certified copy of the ord er dated 18.03.2010. The opposite party, in her affidavit has resisted the prayer for condonation of delay contending, in substance, that the ground offered is wholly unconvincing a nd inadequate. The learned counsel for the parties have abided by the pleaded stands as above. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the r ival pleadings, we are of the view that the explanation offered cannot be constr ued to be sufficient within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963. Admittedly, the appellant had engaged one Mr. R.K. Saikia, Advocate alongwith Mr. Basar to represent him. It is also in not in dispute that on 18.03.2010 Mr. R.K. Saikia, Advocate was not in attendance vis-à-vis the appeal. Though, it is sought to pleaded that a communication gap between the two learned counsel had o ccurred, we do not consider it sufficient to take cognizance thereof and constru e it to be a sufficient cause to condone the delay. As it is, the appeal is against the judgment and decree passed in a suit institu ted by the applicant-husband seeking decree for dissolution of marriage which ha s been granted to him by the judgment and order dated 30.06.2001. Almost a decad e has passed thereafter. His grievance with regard to payment of permanent alimo ny of Rs.1,000.00 per month to her at this distant point of time, even on merit, does not justify any consideration. Moreover, on being repeated queries made by us, we have not been led to any material on record to hold that the amount gr anted by way of permanent alimony as above, either was impermissible under the a forementioned legal provision or unwarranted or unjustified in the facts and cir cumstances. It is submitted at the Bar that the applicant-husband has remarried. On a totality of the considerations as above, we do not consider it to be an app ropriate case for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the accompanying appeal. The averments made in the application for restorat ion being in the same lines as in the one for condonation for delay, even on mer its, we are not satisfied that the delay ought to be condoned. The miscellaneous applications are rejected.