Subhagya Nayak @ Soubhagya vs Maheswar Nayak & Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 3136 Ori

Orissa High Court

Subhagya Nayak @ Soubhagya vs Maheswar Nayak & Another on 30 January, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             MACA No.744 of 2019

         Subhagya Nayak @ Soubhagya           ....               Appellant
         Naik                                           Mr. P.K. Behera, Advocate
                                           -versus-

         Maheswar Nayak & Another             ....                Respondents
                                                      Mr. G.C. Samantaray, Advocate
                                                           (Respondent No. 2)
                             CORAM:
                JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                       ORDER

Order No 30.01.2025

07. I.A. No.1421 of 2019

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. This Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 345 days in filing the appeal in question. The present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the award so passed vide judgment dtd.16.08.2018 by the learned Addl. Dist. Judge-cum- M.A.C.T., Jeypore in MAC Case No.315/2010(T). It is contended that due to the distance involved to communicate with the counsel engaged by the appellants before the Tribunal and physical deformity, the matter got delayed and could not be filed within the period of limitation. However, the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and rather bona fide one. It is accordingly contended that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

// 2 //

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents contended that the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained by showing sufficient cause. It is also contended that the appeal seeking enhancement of the award has been filed after satisfaction of the award by the Respondent-Company and accordingly it is an afterthought.

4.1. It is also contended that stand taken in the application is not supported by any documentary proof and accordingly the same is not entertainable. It is accordingly contended that since delay has not been properly explained, the same is not required to be condoned.

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the claim application was disposed of vide award dt.16.08.2018 and the present appeal was filed on 25.10.2019. The stand taken in the application regarding physical deformity is not supported by any documentary evidence. The application has also been filed after the award was satisfied.

5.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court in absence of any cogent reason is not inclined to condone the delay.

6. The interim application accordingly stands rejected & disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge P.T.O.

// 3 //

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Since this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal accordingly failed and stands dismissed.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack