Orissa High Court
Himanshu Sekhar Panda @ vs Laxmikanta Panda And ... Opposite ... on 18 November, 2024
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.191 of 2024
Himanshu Sekhar Panda @ ... Petitioners
Himansu Panda and another
Ms. S. Devi, Advocate
-versus-
Laxmikanta Panda and ... Opposite Parties
another
Mr. V. Jena, Advocate(OP-1)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
Order No. 18.11.2024
02. I.A. No.290 of 2024
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is an application U/S.5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 30 days.
3. Heard, Ms. S. Devi, learned counsel for the
Petitioners and Mr. V. Jena, learned counsel for the OP
No.1 in the matter and perused the record. No notice
was issued against proforma OP No.2.
4. The petitioners in their application for
condonation of delay have averred the following in
paragraph-2 in support of the condonation of delay in
preferring revision:-
"02. That, the petitioners after obtaining the
certified copy of the impugned order at
Annexure-8 consulted their lawyer who
suggested that the order may be assailed before
the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
However, due to acute financial stringency and
impending surgery of their mother could not file
the RPFAM in time. The petitioners crave leave
of the Hon'ble Court to produce the medical
prescriptions as and when required. Thus there
is delay in approaching the Hon'ble Court."
5. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on
04.03.2024 and the petitioners have filed the present
revision petition after 120 days of the passing of the
impugned order, but the petitioners have not averred in
their application for condonation of delay as to when they
applied for the certified copy of the judgment and when
such certified copy of the judgment was made ready and
delivered to them. Further, the revision petition has been
preferred by two sons of OPNo.1. Further, the petitioners
have not challenged the original order granting
maintenance to the OP No.1 which was passed on
30.04.2022 in CrP No. 276 of 2016, but instead they have
challenged the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in Exn(CrP) No.
212 of 2022 refusing to stay the execution proceeding till
disposal of CMA No. 280 of 2022 filed U/S. 127 of CrPC.
6. True it is that delay should be considered
liberally, but when the conduct of the party itself is not
satisfactory, the delay should not be considered liberally,
rather it has to be addressed in a pragmatic manner. In
this case, the explanation as offered by the petitioners
does not appear to be inconformity with the standard as
fixed for appreciating the petition for condonation of
delay inasmuch as no explanation has been made as to
the cause of delay for a single day, rather it has been
stated in the application for condonation of delay that due
to illness of mother of the petitioners, the revision has
been preferred late, but such an explanation is
unacceptable. Further, neither any document is being
produced nor is the ailment of the mother of the
petitioners disclosed, which in the circumstance
contributes to the non-explanation of the cause of delay.
Delay cannot be condoned, merely because the
petitioners have stated about the illness of their mother
in the petition for condonation of delay without disclosing
the nature of illness or without filing any documents in
support of claim of such illness. In such view of the
matter, the delay in preferring the revision cannot be
condoned.
7. In the result, the IA stands dismissed on contest,
but in the circumstance, without any costs.
8. Since the delay in preferring the revision petition
has not been condoned with dismissal of the petition for
condonation of delay, the present revision petition is not
admitted and is, consequently, dismissed.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Subhasmita
Location: High Court of Orissa
