Orissa High Court
Dulei Naik @ Dulein Mallick vs Sidheswar Naik & Others on 1 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.S.A. No.194 of 2020
Dulei Naik @ Dulein Mallick .... Appellant
Mr.M.R. Badjena, Advocatge
-versus-
Sidheswar Naik & Others .... Respondents
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
01.11.2021
Order
No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical mode).
2. The memo filed by the learned counsel for the
Appellant in Court today is taken on record. In view of the
memo and taking into account the submission of the learned
counsel for the Appellant, office objection is ignored and the
Appellant being a woman is exempted from paying the Court
fees in terms of the Government Notification dated 30.01.2013.
(D. Dash)
Judge
Order I.A. No.403 of 2020
No.
05. 1. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of the delay in filing the Second Appeal.
// 2 //
2. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks to challenge the judgment
and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kandhamal-
Boudh, Phulbani in T.A. No.14 of 1994. The First Appeal has
been disposed of by the judgment dated 01.9.1998. Since the
Memorandum of Appeal has been presented before this Court
on 16.10.2020, prayer for condonation of delay has been
advanced. The delay here is 22 years 8 months and 16 days.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant is a woman hailing from rural pocket of the State and
the result of the Appeal was not intimated by the learned
counsel appearing on her behalf. He submits that had the
Appellant been informed about the result of the Appeal,
certainly, the Appellant, who is in possession of the Suit
property since long would have challenged the judgment and
decree passed by the First Appellate Court in time. He, thus
contends in favour of entertaining the application for
condonation of delay.
4. Keeping in view the submission made, the averments
taken in the application being perused; it is seen that the
explanation for such long delay finds mention at paragraph-4
and it reads as under:-
"there has been a delay of 8074 days in filing the
RSA is not intentional rather due to the death of
previous counsel late P.V. Ramdas to conducting
this case and deliberate latches of the petitioner."
(quoted in verbatim)
// 3 //
5. A reading of the same in fact makes out no meaning
and whatever meaning is gatherable, the same stands in conflict
with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the
Appellant.
6. This Court is conscious of the settled position that
though a liberal approach is called upon in the matter of
condonation of delay yet when the delay is for quite a
considerable period, the Court would seek that plausible
explanations must come forward and that is in order to see that
by condoning such long, no such grave injustice is caused to
the adversary. The above explanations for the delay stating the
sufficient causes to have stood on the way of filing the Appeal
as tendered is not per se acceptable.
6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain
this application for condonation of delay.
7. The I.A. is accordingly dismissed.
(D. Dash)
Judge
Order R.S.A. No.194 of 2020 & I.A. No.405 of 2020
No.
06. 1. In view of the order passed today I.A. No.403 of 2020,
the RSA and the IA stand dismissed.
(D. Dash)
Judge
Basu
