Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K. Pattanaik, J.
M/s. S.J.Developers & Housing Pvt. Ltd. & others - Appellants
Versus
Secretary, Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority & another - Respondents
MSA No. 15 of 2024
Decided On : 08-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of appeal and issuance of notice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's orders for further proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
R.K. Pattanaik, J.
I.A. No.40 of 2024
1. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants and State.
2. Instant I.A. is filed by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the revision in terms of Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT beyond the stipulated period.
3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice.
4. A delay of 9 days is reported as per the S.R.
5. No objection is filed to the I.A. by respondent No.2.
6. Considering the facts pleaded on record and submission explanation offered in filing of the appeal towards delay, the Court is inclined to condone the same in order to ensure disposal of the appeal on merit and according to law.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. Consequently, I.A. stands allowed with the delay of 9 days being condoned.
I.A. No. 43 of 2024
1. Heard.
2. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner for appropriate orders.
3. Considering the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants, the Court is inclined to dispensed with filing of the certified copy of the order i.e. Annexure-2 in Complaint Case No. 161 of 2021 for the present.
4. I.A. stands disposed of accordingly.
MSA No. 15 of 2024
1. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants.
2. Instant appeal in terms of Section 58 of the Real Estate Regulation & Development Act, 2016 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is at the behest of the appellants challenging the impugned order in OREAT Appeal No. 114 of 2022 confirming the order of the learned RERA as per Annexure-2 dated 19th September, 2022.
3. In view of the facts pleaded on record and taking into account the plea advanced, before considering any substantial question of law being involved, the Court is inclined to issue notice to respondent No.1 for a reply as respondent No.2 has entered appearance in the meantime.
4. Accordingly, it is ordered.
5. Notice.
6. Notice to respondent No.1 by registered post with A.D. returnable at an early date and for the said purpose, requisites shall be filed by learned counsel for the appellants within seven days from today.
7. List on 12th September, 2025 for hearing and orders.
The court condoned a 9-day delay in filing an appeal under the Real Estate Regulation & Development Act, stressing the need for justice and procedural fairness despite the lapse.
Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned if justifiable reasons are presented, emphasizing procedural fairness and allowing the case to be heard on merits.
The court emphasized the importance of substantive rights of the people and held that when technicalities of the procedural law are pitted against rights of private parties, the former should yield t....
The need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 to advance substantial justice and the importance of public interest in cases involving the government.
Refusal to condone delay in appeal under Real Estate Act is upheld absent evidence of procedural irregularity.
The concept of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice, and the length of delay is not a deci....
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
