Smt. Pramodini Sahoo vs Sri Basanta @ Roop Kumar Sahoo
2023 Latest Caselaw 4197 Ori

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              MATA No.255 of 2022
     Smt. Pramodini Sahoo               ..........          Appellant
                                              Mr. Umakanta Barik, Advocate
                                  -Versus-
     Sri Basanta @ Roop Kumar Sahoo     .........          Respondent

                                       CORAM:
                                       JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
                                       JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                        I.A. No.296 of 2022
                                             ORDER

24.04.2023 Order Nos.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. It appears from the record that the objection has not been filed

by the respondent, though on the last occasion i.e. 29.03.2023, we had

made accommodation for filing their objection.

3. Today, even there is no representation.

4. Mr. Umakanta Barik, learned counsel appears for the

applicant. Mr. Barik, learned counsel has submitted that there is delay

of 1107 days in filing this appeal. He has submitted that the judgment

was passed on 20.08.2019 as challenged in the appeal. But after

collecting the certified copy, when the applicant visited Cuttack for

engagement of the counsel, she could not arrange the fund for that,

and subsequently, from March, 2020, the COVID pandemic had

disrupted normal life, and hence, she could not file the appeal, as

stated.

5. Mr. Barik, learned counsel has stated that after collecting

some money, the appellant approached the counsel at Cuttack on

27.11.2022.

6. In the meanwhile, the said delay had taken place.

7. The apex court in Re. contagion has clearly observed that the

period from March, 2020 to April, 2022 be waived for purpose of

limitation. True it is that in the present case, the said benefit cannot be

straight away given to the applicant, as the appeal was supposed to be

filed on or before 19.11.2019, when there was no pandemic.

8. In this regard, there is no explanation. Even after April, 2022,

why the appeal could not be filed, there is no explanation. The appeal

was presented on 29.11.2022.

9. As there is no objection from the respondent-opposite party,

and the matter relates to the matrimonial discord, we take a liberal

approach considering further that the long period, out of the above

period, had affected by the pandemic, we condone the said delay.

10. In the result, this application stands allowed and disposed of.

(S. Talapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

MATA No.255 of 2022

03. 1. Heard Mr. Umakanta Barik, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant.

2. Admit.

3. Call for LCRs, scanned or photocopies.

4. Issue notice.

5. Notice is made returnable on 04.07.2023.

6. Steps for service of notice on the respondent be taken by the

appellant by Registered Post with A.D. within 27.04.2023.

7. It is made clear that, if Mr. S.K. Brahma, Advocate, Mr. U.K.

Mishra, Advocate and Mr. M. Satapathy, Advocate or anyone of

them, accepts notice for the respondent, as they have appeared for the

respondent by observing requisite procedure, in I.A. No.296 of 2022,

the service shall be deemed to be complete.

(S. Talapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Subhasis