Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY, J.
State of Orissa and another - Appellants
Versus
Bhaskar Dutta - Respondent
RSA No. 309 of 2019
Decided On : 18-07-2022
Delay - Appeal Rejection - Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 - Section 4(2) - AIR 1969 SC 575, (1988) 2 SCC 142, (1996) 3 SCC 132, (2012) 3 SCC 563, (2012) 5 SCC 157, (2014) 4 SCC 108, (2014) 11 SCC 192, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 249 - The court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2912 days in filing the first appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhadrak by the Appellants. The Appellants failed to account for such huge delay and the grounds taken for condoning the delay were neither satisfactory nor specific. The court referred to various decisions and observed that delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. However, in this case, the court found the Appellants' conduct to be lackadaisical and associated with laches, and their reasons for the delay did not satisfy 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay. The court concluded that the Appellants acted in a negligent and casual manner and remained inactive and undiligent in the matter, and therefore, no ground was found in their favor to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge, Bhadrak.
Fact of the Case:
The present appeal at the instance of the State authorities, viz., the Collector, Bhadrak and the Tahaslidar, Chandbali is directed assailing order dated 19.09.2018 of the learned District Judge, Bhadrak passed in R.F.A. No.42 of 2017. The substantial question involved in the present appeal is to the limited extent that, whether the lower appellate court is justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay. The present Respondent, namely, Bhaskar Dutta filed T.S. No.11/98 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhadrak praying for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession as well as permanent injunction over an extent of land measuring area Ac.4.40 decimals of mouza-Farshibandha in the district of Bhadrak. His claim for declaration was based on the order passed in favour of his late father in Suo Moto Case bearing No.1562/1980 under Section 4(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 and further, his continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit land.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2912 days in filing the first appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhadrak by the Appellants. The Appellants failed to account for such huge delay and the grounds taken for condoning the delay were neither satisfactory nor specific. The court referred to various decisions and observed that delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. However, in this case, the court found the Appellants' conduct to be lackadaisical and associated with laches, and their reasons for the delay did not satisfy 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay. The court concluded that the Appellants acted in a negligent and casual manner and remained inactive and undiligent in the matter, and therefore, no ground was found in their favor to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge, Bhadrak.
Issues: The substantial question involved in the present appeal is to the limited extent that, whether the lower appellate court is justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: Delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, finding the Appellants' conduct to be lackadaisical and associated with laches, and their reasons for the delay did not satisfy 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay.
JUDGMENT :
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Present appeal at the instance of the State authorities, viz., the Collector, Bhadrak and the Tahaslidar, Chandbali is directed assailing order dated 19.09.2018 of the learned District Judge, Bhadrak passed in R.F.A. No.42 of 2017.
2. The substantial question involved in the present appeal is to the limited extent that, whether the lower appellate court is justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay?
3. Before dealing with the substantial question, the facts stated in brief are to the effect that, the present Respondent, namely, Bhaskar Dutta filed T.S. No.11/98 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhadrak praying for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession as well as permanent injunction over an extent of land measuring area Ac.4.40 decimals of mouza-Farshibandha in the district of Bhadrak. His claim for declaration was based on the order passed in favour of his late father in Suo Moto Case bearing No.1562/1980 under Section 4(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 and further, his continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit land. As per his (Plaintiff) claim, the Revenue Officer has settled the suit land in favour of his father declaring him to be a rayat subject to payment of premium fixed. But in the last settlement operation, taking advantage of absence of the Plaintiff in the village, the suit land was recorded as ‘Gochar’ and ‘Abadyajogya Anabadi’ in M.S. Khata No.159.
4. The State-Defendants were set exparte and did not contest the case. Accordingly, ex-parte decree was passed in favour of the Plaintiff (the present Respondent) granting the reliefs prayed by him in the suit. The decree was passed on 22.05.2009 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhadrak.
5. The first appeal being R.F.A. No.42/2017 was filed before the learned District Judge, Bhadrak after around 9 years from the date of decree, i.e. in the year 2017, by the Defendants, who are the present Appellants. Along with the appeal, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed praying to condone the delay. However, the learned District Judge, Bhadrak refused to condone such delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation vide the impugned order dated 19.09.2018. The said order of the learned District Judge, Bhadrak is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
6. Ms. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Appellants submitted in challenging the impugned order of the learned District Judge, Bhadrak that the delay on the part of the Appellants is neither intentional nor deliberate, but as a result of missing of the date by the concerned Government pleader. She further contended that the Appellants being the State authorities, a liberal approach should be taken in their favour to condone the delay in filing the appeal and the matter should be remanded back to the learned trial court for fresh adjudication of the suit on merit particularly keeping in view the large extent of land involved in the suit. In support of her contention, Ms. Mishra relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari and others, AIR 1969 SC 575, G. Ramegowda, Major and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132. She further relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Giridhari Pradhan and others vs. P.S. Prasad (CMP No.802 of 2019 disposed of on 06.12.2021).
7. Conversely, Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent supported the impugned order of the learned District Judge, Bhadrak by submitting that the Appellants have failed to account for such huge delay in preferring the appeal against the decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak. As per his submission, the grounds taken for condoning the delay before the first appellate court are n
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
