IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No. 283 of 2025 An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.

---------------

Sangram Keshari Pradhan & another ….. Petitioners - versus -

Sailabala Giri and others …... Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-

_______________________________________________________

For Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Mishra-2, Advocates.

For Opp. Parties : Mr. Vivekanand Jena, Caveator __________________________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

5th December, 2025 I.A. No. 498 of 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application to restore RSA No. 235 of 2014, which was dismissed by order dated

25.11.2019 passed by this Court.

2. Office has pointed out delay of 2096 days, which is sought to be explained in this application. It is stated that after death of their father, the mother of the appellants was conducting the case and had not informed the petitioners.

After receipt of the caveat petition filed by the respondents, they searched for and contacted the conducting advocate at Cuttack on 12.09.2025 and came to know firstly, that as their mother has not communicated about their father’s death to the conducting advocate and secondly, on 14.10.2019 and 25.11.2019 as the name of the advocate was not reflected in the cause list correctly, he could not attend the Court on the above two dates. As a result, the RSA was dismissed for default.

3. An objection has been filed by the opposite parties, who had filed caveat earlier. It is stated that the plea taken by the petitioners is not acceptable for the reason that the petitioners were themselves looking after the case but have falsely taken the plea that their mother was looking after the case. It is stated that the present petitioner No.1 had deposed as DW-1 on behalf of all the defendants before the Trial Court. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he himself was looking after the case. Moreover, it is unbelievable that an elderly mother aged about 66 years in 2015 would be conducting the litigation without consulting or informing her adult sons, all of whom were residing jointly with her in the same residential building.

4. Heard Shri J.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Vivekananda Jena, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that the connected RSA was dismissed by order dated 25.11.2019. The said order reads as follows.

“Heard learned counsel for the appellants. In spite of chance being given by the peremptory order of this Court dated

14.10.2019, the defect has not been removed.

The RSA thus stands dismissed.”

6. Firstly, it is not borne out from the order that the counsel for the appellants was not present. In fact, it is clearly mentioned that the counsel for the appellants was present and heard. So, the second appeal was not dismissed for non-appearance. The second appeal was dismissed as despite order dated 14.10.2019 for removal of defects, the same had not been done. The second appeal was thus dismissed for non-removal of defects.

7. The plea taken by the petitioners the name of the counsel for the petitioners was wrongly reflected in the cause list cannot be accepted. As regards the other plea that the mother of the petitioners was looking after the case, it also appears to be patently unbelievable for the reason that when the adult sons are available and one of them has already deposed before the Trial Court categorically stating that he himself was looking after the case, it cannot be believed for a moment that the elderly mother would be personally looking after the case without informing her sons. This plea is also not acceptable.

8. Thus, from the above discussion, this Court is not satisfied that the long delay in filing the application for restoration has been adequately explained. This Court is therefore, not inclined to condone the delay in filing the application for re