Orissa High Court
Mohammad Tajuddin Sabir And vs Devi Prasad Patnaik And Others on 9 January, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SAO No.15 of 2024
Mohammad Tajuddin Sabir and .... Appellants
another
Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate
-Versus-
Devi Prasad Patnaik and others .... Respondents
Mr. P.C. Patnaik, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and 2
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
09.01.2025
Order No. Misc. Case No.41 of 2024
02. 1. Heard Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In fact, today, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel has entered
appearance for the respondents and filed the Vakalatnama, which is
accepted and taken on record.
3. Instant petition is filed for condonation of delay in filing of
the appeal in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the reason
stated.
4. Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
delay of 87 days is reported as per the SR. It is, however, fairly
admitted that a delay of 133 days has taken place in filing the
revision and the same is offered with an explanation. It is submitted
that the appellant was suffering from Sciatica and hence, could not
approach this Court in time and therefore, the delay should be
condoned in the interest of justice. In support of such illness of the
appellant, a medical certificate dated 24th September, 2024 is
referred to.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the
respondents strongly opposed condonation of delay for the reason
that the same is inordinate and not explained by the appellant.
According to Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel, the delay is about 100
days and not 87 days as has been reported by the SR. The
contention is that each day's delay is required to be explained by
the appellant which he has failed to account for, hence, the same
should not be condoned.
6. The judgment in RFA No.27 of 2017 was delivered on 16th
April, 2024 and the decree was thereafter drawn on 30th April,
2024 and a day before i.e. on 29th April, 2024, the appellant
applied for a copy of the same. It is further suggested that such copy
of the judgment in appeal was made ready and made available to
the appellant on 18th June, 2024. But then, before any steps could
be taken by the appellant, as it is claimed, he fell sick on account of
Sciatica. The Court perused the medical certificate dated 24th
September, 2024. In fact, by the time, the copy of the judgment in
the appeal was collected, the appellant was though found to be hale
and hearty but fell sick on and from 25th June, 2024 and till 25th
September, 2024. In any view of the matter, without suspecting the
claim of the appellant and accepting the medical certificate dated
24th September, 2024 at its face value and the explanation offered
towards the delay found to be probable, recording the objection of
Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the respondents and in order to
ensure to disposal of the appeal on merit, the Court is of the view
that such delay should be condoned in the interest of justice but
with cost.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, the petition stands allowed with the
condonation of delay in filing of the appeal being condoned,
however, subject to cost of Rs.1000/- payable to the respondents.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
1. In view of the above order in I.A. No.41 of 2024, Ms.
Naidu, learned counsel for the appellant is requested to serve a copy
of the appeal memorandum on Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. For further hearing and final disposal, list on 28th January,
2025,
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Designation: Junior Stenographer
