[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sohan Ram vs Upendra Nath Mohanta & Another on 29 January, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. NO. 1957 OF 2025
In the matter of an appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order,
1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court
from the order dated 26.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No.27807 of 2024 by
the learned Single Judge of this Court.
Sohan Ram .... Appellant
-Versus-
Upendra Nath Mohanta & Another .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : M/s. Arijeet Mishra, S.K. Jena, S. Biswal, R.
Mahanto, K.P. Mukhi & I. Mishra, Advocates
For Respondents : M/s. Kshirod Kumar Rout, S.K. Rout, T.S.
Swaraj, S.Sthitaprajna, S.Sahoo, A.S. Mishra
(Caveator)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & Judgment :: 29.01.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J.
This case has successive stages; originally, it was filed
before learned Senior Civil Judge, Karanjia vide Election Misc.
No.11 of 2022; this having been favoured, the election of returned
candidate, i.e., appellant herein was set at naught vide order dated
09.04.2024. Then appeal was carried to the Court of learned
Additional District Judge, Karanjia in Election Misc. Appeal No.2
of 2024, which came to be dismissed on 30.09.2024. Thereafter, he
preferred W.P.(C) No.27807 of 2024, which met the same fate at
the hands of a learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.11.2025.
Now, in intra-Court appeal, matter is at our hand.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who suffered
cancellation of his election, vehemently urges one single point for
our consideration. An Election Petition filed belatedly has to be
accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and
therefore, an application filed subsequently should not have been
entertained by the Election Court. He further argues that this
important aspect having not been adverted to in a right perspective,
the impugned orders are liable to be set at naught. Learned counsel
representing the Respondents makes submission in justification of
the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been
constructed.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter
broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge,
who has affirmed orders of the Courts below.
3.1. Section 44-B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959
prescribes a period of fifteen days as limitation for laying a
challenge to the elections to panchayats. The period is reckoned
from a day after the election results are announced. In the instant
case, it is admitted at the Bar, obviously after the period of
limitation. An application is filed of course long after the filing of
the challenge seeking condonation of delay. Counsel for the
respondents rightly points out that in paragraph-5 of the Election
Misc. Petition, delay is mentioned.
3.2. The provisions of section 44-B of the Act also provide for
condonation of delay, when election petition is filed belatedly.
Relevant part of the section reads as under:
"44-B. Presentation of petitions (1) The petition shall be presented
on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 44-L before the
[Civil Judge (Senior Division)] having jurisdiction over the place at
which the office of the Samiti is situated] together with a deposit of
[two hundred rupees] as security for costs within fifteen days after
the day on which the result of the election was announced:
Provided that if the office of the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] is
closed on the last day of the period of limitation as aforesaid the
petition may be presented on the next day on which such office is
open:
Provided further that if the petitioner satisfies the [Civil Judge
(Senior Division)] that sufficient cause existed for the failure to
present the petition within the period aforesaid the [Civil Judge
(Senior Division)] may in his discretion condone such failure:..."
Although Section 44-B mentions a period of fifteen days for laying
a challenge to the election, there is nothing as to the period within
which an application for condonation of delay should be filed. The
contention that where application for condonation of delay is filed
subsequent to filing of the petition to challenge the election, even
that delay should be explained, thus does not merit acceptance. We
repeat that limitation is prescribed only for filing the main petition
and not any interlocutory application. If the Legislature intended
otherwise, it would have made a provision to that effect. It hardly
needs to be stated that the law of election is what the statute says
vide Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, AIR 1982 SC 983 and Court
cannot import the principles de hors the statute.
3.3. A Division Bench of Karanataka High Court in State of
Karnataka v. Nagappa, AIR 1986 Kar. 199, has held that a
proceeding filed belatedly cannot be turned down on the ground of
delay per se without giving an opportunity to the litigant to file an
application for condoning delay, if the statute provides for
condonation. The following observations are worth adverting to:
"17. A Court, before which a time barred appeal comes for hearing
with no application made along with it under section 5 of the
Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay, as to necessarily
dismiss it not because of non-compliance with sub-rule(1) of Rule
3A of Order 41 of the Code, but because of the operation of section
3 of that Act. Therefore, what the Court can do when a time barred
appeal is presented before it without being accompanied by an
application for condonation of delay, is to regard to such
presentation as defective for non-compliance with sub-rule (1) of
Rule 3A and taking into account the procedural nature of defect in
such presentation, to afford to the appellant concerned a
reasonable opportunity of remedying the defect, instead of
proceeding to dismiss the appeal itself outright or in limine..."
The above observation broadly reflect what course of action
a Court can take consistent with the rules of reason and justice,
when a time barred appeal is not accompanied by application for
condonation of delay. They apply to election disputes of the kind.
We hasten to add that, the Court may call for explanation when the
application for condonation of delay is filed long after the filing of
challenge to election. Ideally speaking, such application should be
filed when the petition is instituted challenging the election.
No other point having been urged, this Intra-Court appeal
lacking in merits, is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs
having been made easy.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 29th day of January, 2026/Prasant
