Sadananda Sahoo vs Pujarini Sahoo
2023 Latest Caselaw 2208 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           MATA No. 154 of 2022

Sadananda Sahoo                       .....                              Appellant
                                                             Mr. C.R. Sahoo, Adv.
                                      Vs.
Pujarini Sahoo                        .....                            Respondent
                                                           Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Adv.
            CORAM:
                       JUSTICE S.TALAPATRA
                      JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                          ORDER

17.03.2023 Order No.

07. I.A. No. 174 of 2022

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant and also Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for

the Respondent.

3. This is an application for condoning the delay of 62 days in

filing the appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984

from the judgment dated 11.03.2022 delivered in Civil Proceeding

No. 134 of 2020.

4. As the causes assigned in the original application filed under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not satisfy us, we granted liberty

to the Appellant to file a better application detailing the causes

which prevented him from filing the appeal in time. Such additional

pleadings have been filed by I.A. No. 277 of 2022. According to the

appellant, after the ex-parte judgment was passed, he was not

immediately given any information. After he received the

information regarding the judgment, he had applied for the certified

copies without much delay. Then, he had approached the counsel for

preparation of the appeal.

5. In the meanwhile, the appellant had filed one application for

restoration of the suit under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. But the said

application was rejected. After the rejection, he had filed the appeal.

6. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent has categorically stated that the Appellant has not come

with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts.

According to him, the notice was served on the Appellant and he

appeared. Later on, he deliberately absented from proceeding. His

conduct has been reflected in the judgment dated 11.03.2022. That

apart, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has submitted that the causes as

assigned are not sufficient to condone the delay. Some of these

causes even cannot be believed.

7. We have taken note of the submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties. Since the dispute is a matrimonial dispute and the

delay is not inordinate, we take a liberal approach to condone the

said delay, however, subject to payment of Rs.2000/- to the

Respondent. Such costs shall be paid within seven days from today.

After payment, the receipt shall be filed in the Registry.

8. In terms of the above, this application stands allowed and

disposed of.

(S.Talapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

I.A. No. 277 of 2022

08. 1. In view of the order passed today in I.A. No. 174 of 2022, this

applications stands disposed of.

(S.Talapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

MATA No. 154 of 2022

09. 1. In view of the order passed today in I.A. No. 174 of 2022, this

appeal shall be listed on 31.03.2023.

(S.Talapatra) Judge Sukanta

(Savitri Ratho) Judge