Orissa High Court
Ramkinkar Sing Deo vs The Collector on 23 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET NO.81 OF 2013
Ramkinkar Sing Deo .... Petitioner
Mr.C.A.Rao, Sr.Adv.
-versus-
The Collector, Nuapada & ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
M.S.P.Panda, AGA
Mr.R.K.Mohanty, Sr.Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order 23.11.2022
M.C.NO.13 OF 2018
No.
7. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. This is an Application for condonation of delay in filing the
present Review Petition.
3. Advancing his submission, Mr.C.A.Rao, learned senior
counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Review Petition
involves brought on Record of this Court by virtue of the direction
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in disposal of Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil) No.9325/2013 on 8.3.2013.
4. There is no dispute that the Review Petition was filed on
16.4.2013. Through Paragraphs-2 & 3 of the present Misc. Case,
there is request for condonation of delay on the ground that first of
all, there was delay in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment in
// 2 //
Writ Appeal No.534/2011 and which course was filed subsequently
on 20.8.2015. Taking this Court to the date of filing of the
Limitation Petition on 21.1.2018, there is admission that there has
been delay of 953 days in filing the Limitation Petition. There was
no dispute at the Bar, in the event the Review Petition does not
accompany the Limitation Petition, the limitation period stretches to
the date of filing of the Limitation Petition. Learned senior counsel
for the Petitioner while also submitting that there is in fact no delay
as there is no time stipulation in the Hon'ble Supreme Court order
requests this Court to condone the delay accordingly.
5. Mr.R.K.Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the contesting
private O.Ps., on the other hand, resisted entertaining such
Limitation Petition on the ground that once the Hon'ble Supreme
Court gave liberty to a Party to bring Review Petition before the
High Court, the Party benefited by such direction is duty-bound to
bring the Review Petition within reasonable time. Further looking to
the narrations in Paragraphs-2 & 3 of the Limitation, there is
admission of delay of 953 days, even there is delay in filing the
certified copy of the judgment required to be interfered with in the
Review Petition. In the above background, Mr.Mohanty, learned
senior counsel resisted entertaining such Petition.
// 3 //
6. Mr.S.P.Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate
adopted the submission of Mr.R.K.Mohanty, learned senior counsel
for the contesting private O.Ps. and also prayed for dismissal of the
Limitation Petition.
7. This Court here finds, the background involving filing of the
Review Petition appears to be dependent on the order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in disposal of Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No.9325/2013 on 8.3.2013, which order reads as follows :-
"Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and
perused the relevant material.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner on the
date of passing of the impugned order the sole appellant
therein was no more and he died on 19,.2.2012. If the above
statement is correct, the petitioners are free to approach the
High Court by way of filing a review petition.
With the above observation, the special leave petition is
disposed of."
8. Undisputedly, the Review Petition was filed on 16.4.2013
but it was not a proper application for non-filing of certified copy of
the judgment passed in the Writ Appeal appearing to be impugned in
the Review Petition. and even though a submission is made by the
learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, there was no direction by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court to approach the High Court by way of
Review Petition within time frame, and therefore, there is no delay
in fact, this Court observes, even though there is no direction for
// 4 //
filing Review Petition in time frame but for the clear provision in
bringing a proper petition at least within one month of the date of
order under the provision of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court
finds, there is inordinate delay. However, considering that the
Petitioner had difficulty in getting the certified copy of the judgment
passed in Writ Appeal No.534/2011 being obtained by the Petitioner
and was filed ultimately on 20.8.2015, nothing prevented the
Petitioner to file the Limitation Petition at least on this date. The
Petitioner waited almost three years to bring the Limitation Petition.
For the settled position of law, unless the Limitation Petition is
accompanied with the Review Petition, the Limitation stretches to
the date of filing of the Limitation Petition. As a consequence, this
Court finds, there has been inordinate delay of 953 days in
presenting the Review Petition ultimately.
9. It is at this stage, this Court takes into account the reason of
permission to the Petitioner to file the Review Petition in this Court
involving the Writ Appeal Judgement appears to be involving
inherent defects in the disposal of Writ Appeal No.534/2011,
admittedly in pendency of a substitution petition in Writ Appeal,
vide Misc. Case No.187/2012 appears to have been filed on
22.3.2012 and the judgment against a dead man passed in Writ
Appeal No.534/2011 on 13.12.2012.
// 5 //
10. In the circumstance, this Court finds, the delay should be
condoned but however keeping in view the suffering of the
contesting private O.Ps., this Court feels it appropriate to impose
cost of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) to be paid to the private
O.Ps. through their Counsel within ten days from today, failing
which the Review Petition shall stand dismissed without further
reference to the Bench.
11. Provided the cost is paid and receipt is filed, the Review
Petition will be listed for consideration of the Review Petition
involved by this Bench on 7th December, 2022.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
(G.Satapathy)
Judge
M.K.Rout
