IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, JJ.
Premanand Nag - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondent
W.P.(C) No.13184 of 2025
Decided On : 10-12-2025
ORDER :
This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This writ petition has been filed by the Premanand Nag with a prayer for setting aside the order date 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short, “Tribunal”) in M.A. No.260/00225 of 2024 & M.A. No.260/00226 of 2024, in dismissing both the Miscellaneous Applications.
Needless to say that the M.A. No.260/00225 of 2024 was filed for restoration of O.A. No.521 of 2013, which was dismissed for default for non-prosecution on behalf of the petitioner on 27.03.2019 and M.A. No.260/00226 of 2024 was filed to condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application i.e., M.A. No.260/00225 of 2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner filed the copy of the Original Application, which is taken on record.
In the said Original Application, the prayer was made before the Tribunal to set aside the order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Revisionary Authority & Addl. Divisional Railway Manager, Sambalpur, opposite party no.2 so also order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority & Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Sambalpur, opposite party no.3 and also the order of removal of the petitioner from service dated 19.12.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority & Asst. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, East Coast Railway, Sambalpur, opposite party no.4.
It appears that the O.A. was listed on 17.01.2019, nobody was present for the petitioner and accordingly, the matter was adjourned and it was listed again on 27.03.2019 but since no one was present on that day, the O.A. was dismissed for default. The order dated 27.03.2019 is quoted herein below:
“None is present on behalf of the applicant.
None was present on behalf of the applicant on previous date on 17.1.2019.
It seems that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing this case.
The OA is therefore dismissed in default for non-prosecution on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel is present on behalf of Dr. C.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents”.
The Miscellaneous Application vide M.A. No.260/00225 of 2024 was filed on 02.04.2024 for restoring the O.A. No. 521 of 2013 and grounds have been taken that since the Advocate of the petitioner was ill on 27.03.2019, he could not see the list and depended on his associates, for which, they lost sight of posting of the case for hearing on 27.03.2019. It is further stated that the wife of the petitioner was ill, for which he was engaged himself to give her medical treatment from January 2019 to 20th January 2023 on which date, his wife expired due to chest cancer. It is further stated that after the death of the wife, the petitioner forgot about the pending case in the Tribunal and did not come to meet his advocate due to heavy mental pressure and stress and also an account of financial disability from 2019 to March 2024 and ultimately, the petitioner after inspection on 27.03.2024 came to know that the case was dismissed for default on 27.03.2019. It is further stated that neither the petitioner nor his Advocate knew about the posting of the case on different dates for hearing and therefore, their non-appearance was not intentional and that the petitioner had taken all due care and caution for prosecuting the case since 2013 and that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance on 27.03.2029 and accordingly, prayer was made to restore the O.A. No.521 of 2013 to file and post the same for hearing.
The Miscellaneous Application which was filed with M.A. No.260/00225 of 2024 was registered as M.A. No.260/00226 of 2024, in which prayer has been made to condone the delay that has occurred in filing the M.A. No.225 of 2024.
The learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold that the order of termination is dated 19.12.2012 and the O.A. was dismissed on 27.03.2019 and therefore, allowing the Miscellaneous Applications at the belated stage would ultimately unsettle a settled matter after long lapse
Litigants must be vigilant about their legal proceedings, and cannot solely blame their advocates for delays, as responsibility lies with them to maintain awareness of their cases.
Litigants must take responsibility for their legal representation; negligent conduct by an advocate does not negate a party's obligation to remain vigilant about their legal proceedings.
The court held that mere reliance on counsel does not excuse delay in litigation; sufficient cause must be demonstrated for each day of delay to condone it.
Point of Law - It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of court Section 5 of Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within ....
Litigants are not penalized for their Advocate's negligence; restoration of a suit can be granted based on demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance.
The burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the applicant may not justify condoning the delay.
Courts can consider merits alongside delay in restoration petitions under CPC to promote justice over technicalities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the exercise of discretion to advance su....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.