Sabita Sahoo vs Ramavtar Yadav & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2106 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sabita Sahoo vs Ramavtar Yadav & Ors on 6 January, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                  MACA No.778 of 2020
Sabita Sahoo                  .....      Appellant
                                                 Mr. B.P. Mohanty, Advocate
                                  -versus-
Ramavtar Yadav & Ors.                .....              Respondents
                                                Ms. N. Mohanty, Advocate
                                                    (Respondent No. 3)

                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                     ORDER

06.01.2025

Order No. 11 I.A. No. 1389 of 2020

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

4. In support of his contention learned counsel for the Appellant contended that one Nilamani Sahoo, father-in-law of the Appellant No. 1 was looking after the case and he died on 05.09.2004. After such death of the father-in-law, Appellant No. 1 became mentally unsound and even though the matter was dispose of vide Judgment dtd.09.08.2011, but no step was taken to file the appeal within the statutory period of limitation. It is accordingly contended that in view of the stand taken in Para 2 of the application, delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

5. Ms. N. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- Company on the other hand contended that since there is delay of more than 9 years in filing the appeal and no sufficient ground has

been pleaded in support of such condontation of delay, the delay is not required to be condoned.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and considering the grounds taken in the I.A., this Court does not find any justifiable ground being raised to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which is more than 3895 days. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay.

7. Accordingly, I.A. stands rejected.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

1. Since this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack