Krushna Chandra Sahoo And vs Banita Sahoo And Another .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6214 Ori

Orissa High Court

Krushna Chandra Sahoo And vs Banita Sahoo And Another .... Opposite ... on 24 June, 2025

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           CRLREV No.58 of 2025
        Krushna Chandra Sahoo and             ....           Petitioners
        others
                                              Mr. D. Sahoo, Advocate


                                   -Versus-

        Banita Sahoo and another              ....      Opposite Parties
                                                                None
                 CORAM:
                 MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                  ORDER

24.06.2025 Order No.

01. 1. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. No notices are issued to the opposite parties as the same is not necessary and hence, dispensed with.

3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 3rd December, 2024 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2024 by learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani, Kandhamal as at Annexure-1.

4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission without any notice being issued to the opposite parties. The further

submission is that there was delay in filing of the appeal and it was sought to be condoned by the petitioners and supported by a medical certificate for the period between 27th May, 2024 and 13th June, 2024 but it was not allowed. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 is a daily labourer and she was under treatment and in support of such treatment, the medical certificate dated 21st June, 2024 was produced before the learned court below but such delay in filing of the appeal was not condoned. The contention is that petitioner No.1 though had sufficient cause for default but it was not entertained by the learned court below leading to the passing of the impugned order at Annexure-1 while disposing of Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2023.

5. In fact, opposite party No.1, who happens to be wife of petitioner No.2, moved an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DV Act') against the petitioners and considering the same, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women's Court), Phulbani, Kandhamal directed the latter to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac as compensation to the former within a period of three months from the date of the said order. A copy of the judgment in MC (DV) No.52 of 2018 is at Annexure-2. It is submitted by Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners that the said order was challenged in appeal before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kandhamal. As earlier stated, the delay was not

condoned and appeal was finally dismissed. On a reading of the impugned order, it is made to understand that petitioner No.1 furnished a medical certificate of a doctor for the period of his illness from 27th May, 2024 to 21st June, 2024. However, in absence of any of medical documents for and in respect of Ayurveda treatment between 23rd April, 2024 and 26th May, 2024 and for the fact that a medical certificate dated 10th July, 2024 was procured from Additional District Public Officer, Leprosy, Kandhamal to the effect that he was suffering typhoid and was under treatment, such plea was disbelieved by the learned court below. A doubt has been entertained by the learned Sessions Judge, Kandhamal while considering delay condonation for the fact that husband opposite party No.1 even though a daily labourer managed the treatment privately and that too, at a distant place. The conclusion reached at by the learned court below is that the explanation which is offered by petitioner No.1 does not satisfy its judicial conscience, hence, declined to condone the delay while dealing with the appeal referring to a decision of Delhi High Court in Vishal Kumar Vrs. Karishma Kumari (Criminal Revision Petition No.1233 of 2023) disposed of on 11th January, 2024.

6. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners cited a decision of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Ramkumar Choudhury in Special Leave Petition (C) No.48636 of 2024 decided on 29th November, 2024 to contend

that a case is made out by petitioner No.1 towards condonation of delay as it is supported by medical evidence.

7. In the decision (supra), the Apex Court held and observed that sufficient cause means adequate and enough reason which prevented a party to approach the court and therein, a reference has been made to an earlier decision in Majji Sannemma Vrs. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, wherein, it has been concluded that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of the party, the same has to be applied with its rigour when prescribed by a statute. The essence of the above decision is that sufficient cause is shown to exist for the purpose of condonation of delay. In the said case, the Apex Court, despite huge delay, condoned the same in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. In so far as the case at hand is concerned, petitioner No.1 produced a medical certificate for a particular period, a copy of which is at Annexure-4. The impugned order dated 3rd December, 2024 at Annexure-1 also reveals that the petitioner No.1 managed medical certificate dated 10th July, 2024 obtained from a Govt. doctor. As it appears, learned court below entertained doubt and did not accept the medical papers on the premise that a doctor attached to a Loprosy hospital issued such a certificate stating therein about petitioner No.1 suffering from typhoid fever. The further doubt is that petitioner No.1 could not have received the treatment privately and at a far of place from his village. While considering

condonation of delay, a court cannot be hypothetical but shall have to consider the material evidence on record. As earlier stated, the medical papers for a period between 27th May, 2024 and 21st June, 2024 and subsequently, from a Govt. Hospital dated 10th July, 2024 being obtained were produced before learned court below seeking condonation of delay of six months. It is also not in denial that the petitioners are a daily labourer so revealed from the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 itself. In so far as the order of the court of 1 st instance is concerned, the petitioners have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac to the opposite parties. Considering the above facts and the decision under challenge and for the fact that such compensation has been directed in a proceeding under Section 12 of the DV Act and petitioner No.1, on account of illness, produced the medical certificate i.e. Annexure-4 and even a certificate of a Govt. doctor dated 10th July, 2024, who is eligible to issue the same, learned court below could not have entertained any such doubt. The appeal was filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned judgment at Annexure-2 and even though there has been a delay of six months, reasonable explanation having been offered by petitioner No.1 for his illness during the alleged period, the Court is of the conclusion that learned court below should have taken a lenient view condoning it. Law is well settled that there cannot be a pedantic approach, while dealing with condonation of delay. Since medial papers were produced before the learned court below, it could have been accepted and entertained by the

learned court below condoning delay of six months. In other words, the Court reaches at a conclusion that a case is well made out for such condonation of delay even though it is about six months as each day's delay is not necessarily to be explained. Accordingly, it is ordered.

9. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a corollary, the impugned order dated 3rd December, 2024 as at Annexure-1 passed in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2024 by learned Sessions Judge, Kandhamal is hereby set aside with a direction to admit the appeal and with notices to the opposite parties to proceed to dispose of the same as per and in accordance with law. It is further directed that the petitioners would be at liberty to move the learned court below seeking stay execution of the order dated 1st March, 2024 in MC (DV) No.52 of 2018 and in case moved, it shall be duly entertained and considered in the appeal.

10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

TUDU

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA