Agadhu Tareni vs Brahmananda Lenka And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 11733 Ori

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  W.A. No.17 of 2010


             Agadhu Tareni                   ....             Appellant
                                    Mr. Suvashish Pattanaik, Advocate
                                   -versus-
             Brahmananda Lenka and others    ....          Respondents
                                            Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate

                       CORAM:
                       THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                       JUSTICE A. K. MOHAPATRA


                                        ORDER

15.11.2021

Order No. W.A. No.17 of 2010 and Misc. Case No.42 of 2010

06. 1. There is a delay of 963 days in filing the present appeal. The explanation given in the above Misc. Case No.42 of 2010 reads as under:

"2. That, the advocate for the appellant Mr. A. K. Rao has left practice and the city of Cuttack for the last two years without intimation to anybody.

3. That, the appellant who had entrusted the case to Mr. A. K. Rao, Advocate had no knowledge that his counsel had left practice.

In fact, none of the associates of Mr. A. K. Rao had intimated the appellant against the fact of the aforesaid case.

4. That, arose on dt.26.11.2009 the appellant on receipt of the notice in Crl. Misc. Case No.128/09 (U/s. 144 CPC) which was filed by some of the respondents before the Executive Magistrate, Kakatpur and know that OJC No.7771/95 has been dismissed.

5. That, thereafter the appellant who in an woman deputed his son Ajay Kumar Tareni to contact an advocate at Cuttack who obtained certified copy of the judgment as on 17.12.2009. But unfortunately, the said Ajay Kumar Tareni who was looking after the case suffered from Rheumatism from 18.12.2009 to 06.02.2010. For the said period he was completely bed ridden. Therefore, there is delay of 963 days in filing this writ appeal."

2. The Court is not at all convinced with the above explanation for the extraordinary and inordinate delay of 963 days. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(A. K. Mohapatra ) Judge M. Panda