Orissa High Court
Sohan Ram vs Upendra Nath Mohanta & .... Opposite ... on 26 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27807 of 2024
Sohan Ram .... Petitioner
Mr. Arijeet Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
Upendra Nath Mohanta & .... Opposite Parties
another
Mr. Swaraj on behalf of Mr.
K.K. Rout, Advocate
(O.P. No.1)
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
(O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
26.11.2025
Order No.
08. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Swaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf Mr. Rout,
learned counsel for opposite party No.1 besides Mr. Sahoo,
learned ASC for the State-opposite party No.2.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing
the impugned judgment in EMA No.02 of 2024 as at
Annexure-4 of the learned Additional District Judge, Karanjia,
Mayurbhanj confirming the decision and judgment of the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karanjia in Election
Misc. Case No.11 of 2022 on the grounds stated.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the election petition filed under Section 44-A of the Odisha
Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') was not accompanied with the application under Section
44-B thereof while seeking condonation of delay. The further
submission is that such an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act instead was received in the month of September,
2022 and it was entertained followed by condonation of delay
of 8 days. The contention is that the learned Civil Judge ought
not to have allowed such condonation of delay being inordinate
when the election petition was filed in the month of March,
2022, whereas, an application demanding such condonation
was filed in September of the said year. According to Mr.
Mishra, learned counsel, the delay is more than six months but
erroneously, it was concluded as 8 days by the learned Civil
Judge. It is submitted that the said aspect was lost sight of by
the learned Court below while confirming the judgment in
Election Misc. Case No.11 of 2022 and therefore, the impugned
decision vide Annexure-4 is liable to be interfered with.
4. Mr. Swaraj, learned counsel for opposite party No.1, on
the other hand, submits that the delay is about 8 days in filing
the election petition and seeking condonation of the same, an
application was filed and admittedly, it was in the month of
September, 2022 and was followed by the order of the learned
Civil Judge on 31st March, 2023. The default on the part of the
election petitioner, namely, opposite party No.1 as according to
Mr. Swaraj, learned counsel was explained on medical ground.
It is submitted that medical evidence was received by the
learned Civil Judge and at last, considering the same and in
exercise of powers under Section 44-B 2nd proviso of the Act
condoned the same and, hence, there has been no wrong or
illegality committed as a result and ultimately, the same has
been confirmed in the appeal by the learned Court below.
5. Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC
for the State.
6. In course of hearing, Mr. Swaraj, learned counsel for
opposite party No.1 cited a decision of the Apex Court in Sesh
Nath Singh and others Vrs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-
operative Bank Ltd. and others AIR 2021 SC 2637 to
contend that no separate application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is required to be filed, even though, in the case
at hand, the same was received from opposite party No.1 in the
month of September, 2022. It is submitted that Section 5 of the
Limitation Act speaks of no application, which is a provision
that enables the Court to admit such application in the appeal if
the applicant or appellant as the case may be satisfies that he
had 'sufficient cause' for not making the application and/or
preferring the appeal within the time prescribed. The essence of
the argument of Mr. Swaraj, learned counsel for opposite party
No.1 is that while insisting upon the condonation of delay, a
separate application may not be necessary.
7. In so far as Section 44-B of the Act is concerned, as per
the 2nd proviso to sub-section (1) thereof, the Civil Judge is
having the powers to accept an election petition beyond the
stipulated period provided that there is sufficient cause shown.
In the case of the petitioner, the election dispute was raised in
the month of March, 2022 and it was with a delay of 8 days
only. No formal application was filed along with the election
petition in terms of the 2nd proviso as above, which was
received in the month of September, 2022 and considering the
same, the learned court below condoned the delay of 8 days.
8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for
the respective parties and the above provisions and having
regard to the law enunciated by the Apex Court in Sesh Nath
Singh (supra) and having regard to the fact that there has been
a delay of 8 days only and even though an application was
received much later to the election petition, the delay having
been explained by opposite party No.1 supported by the a
medical certificate, the Court is of the considered view that the
learned Courts below did not commit any error or illegality in
condoning the same.
9. No other points have been raised at the time of hearing
as the challenge to the impugned judgment at Annexure-4 is
confined to limitation. In view of the discussion as aforesaid,
the Court finds no merit in the claim of the petitioner. In other
words, the conclusion of the Court is that the impugned
judgment dated 30th September, 2024 in E.M.A. No.02 of 2024
at Annexure-4 suffers from no legal infirmity.
10. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Alok
