The court emphasized a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays under the Limitation Act, allowing parties to contest cases on merit, despite prior procedural irregularities.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

1. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.11.2023 passed in R.F.A. No.9 of 2021 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (which was filed for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal vide R.F.A. No.9 of 2021) by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.

2. The petitioner in this revision is the Respondent No.1 in R.F.A. No.9 of 2021 pending in the court of the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. The Opposite Party No.11 in this revision is the Respondent No.2 in that R.F.A. No.9 of 2021 and the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 10 in this revision are the appellants in R.F.A. No.9 of 2021.

3. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner in this revision instituted a suit vide C.S. No.1949 of 2016 against Kunjalata Sahoo @ Rout (predecessor of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 10 in this revision) praying for a decree of specific performance of contract in respect of the suit properties on the basis of a registered agreement to sell and also for a decree of permanent injunction.

4. The said suit vide C.S. No.1949 of 2016 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was decreed ex parte on dated 19.05.2018 against Kunjalata Sahoo @ Rout(predecessor of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 10). Thereafter, the petitioner(plaintiff) filed an execution case vide Execution Case No.26 of 2018 in the court of the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar to execute the decree passed on dated 19.05.2018 in the suit vide C.S. No.1949 of 2016 against Kunjalata Sahoo @ Rout. As, that Kunjalata Sahoo @ Rout had expired, then her legal heirs(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 10) were substituted in her place in the said Execution Case No.26 of 2018. The successors of Kunjalata Sahoo @ Rout, i.e., Opposite Party Nos.1 to 10 filed I.A. No.3 of 2021 and I.A. No.4 of 2021 in that Execution Case No.26 of 2018 praying for dropping that execution case on the ground that, the ex parte decree passed in C.S. No.1949 of 2016 against their predecessors is not executable, because prior to the passing of the said decree on dated 27.11.2017, their predecessors, i.e., Kunjalata Sahoo @ Rout had already expired. For which, the decree passed in the suit vide C.S. No.1949 of 2016 against their above deceased predecessor is a nullity on the ground of passing of the same against a dead man.

5. The executing court in Execution Case No.26 of 2018 rejected both the I.As. vide I.A. No.3 of 2021 and I.A. No.4 of 2021 of the successors of the deceased defendant in C.S. No.1949 of 2016 on dated 21.07.2022. For which, the successors of Kunjalata Sahoo @ Rout (Opposite Party Nos.1 to 10 in this revision) challenged the same by filing two civil revisions vide C.R.P. Nos.9 of 2022 and 10 of 2022 before the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar and both the civil revisions were allowed. To which, the petitioner/plaintiff challenged the same by filing CMP Nos.295 of 2023 and 296 of 2023 before this Court and the said CMPs are subjudice/pending in the High Court for adjudication.

In the meantime, the successors of the deceased defendant Kunjalata Sahoo @ Rout in the suit vide C.S. No.1949 of 2016 filed first appeal vide RFA No.9 of 2021 under Section 96 of the C.P.C., 1908 in the court of the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar challenging the ex parte decree dated 19