Manjula Behera vs Ramakanta Behera
2024 Latest Caselaw 12598 Ori

Orissa High Court

Manjula Behera vs Ramakanta Behera on 1 August, 2024

Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S.Sahoo

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            MATA No.168 of 2024
Manjula Behera                                 .....                  Appellant

                                                           Represented by Adv.-
                                                             Mr. J.K. Mohanty,
                                                                     Advocate,
                                    -versus-
Ramakanta Behera                                .....                Respondent

                                                          Represented by Adv.-

                                   CORAM:
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                      AND
                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
                                  ORDER

01.08.2024 I.A. no.205 of 2024 and MATA no.168 of 2024 Order No.

02. 1. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of

applicant-appellant, who was wife in the marriage dissolved by

common judgment dated 25th April, 2023 of the Family Court. He

submits, notice on, inter alia, the application resulted in return of

the postal article. He submits, delay be condoned and the appeal

admitted.

2. Postal endorsement appearing on returned postal article say

that the addressee was absent on several dates. As such, he could

not be located and the article was returned to sender.

3. In our view the situation is good service as covered by

decisions of the Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v.

Palapetty Muhammed, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 555,

paragraph 14, State of M.P. v. Hiralal, reported in (1996) 7

SCC 523, paragraph 1 and M/s. Madan and Co. v. Wazir

Jaivir Chand, reported in AIR 1989 SC 630, paragraph-6.

Respondent goes unrepresented.

4. Reported delay is 234 days. Mr. Mohanty submits, there was

communication gap between his client's learned advocate in the

Family Court and herself. Then she was unwell. Thus on

communication gap and her ill health, there was the delay.

5. We accept causes shown. The delay is condoned and the

appeal admitted. The application is disposed of.

6. Appellant will put in requisites for issuance of notice of

appeal. The lower Court record be called for.

7. Mr. Mohanty is requested to communicate website copy

of our order to learned advocate, who had represented

respondent in the Family Court and file acknowledgment on

adjourned date.

8. List on 27th August, 2024.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge dutta/Jyostna