IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Pramod Chandra Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. N. C. Mohanty, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 to 7 CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

02.12.2025 Order No.

04. M.C. No.404 of 2017

1. Heard.

2. Instant application is filed for condonation of delay.

3. A delay of 4 days is reported as per the Stamp Reporter. 4. Considering the explanation offered by the petitioner towards the delay, which is of only 4 days, the Court is inclined to condone the same in order to facilitate disposal of the revision on merit.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered.

6. The I.A. is allowed with the delay being condoned.

(R.K. Pattanaik)

05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 12^th November,.2016 at Annexure-4 with a direction to the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher to entertain and dispose of the proceeding in G.R. Case No.393 of 2016 in accordance with law.

3 . Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a case law of Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.3707 of 2024 disposed of on 1^st July, 2024 with the submission that the Lok Adalat does not have the jurisdiction to pass any such order accepting the final report and should have returned back the record to the Court concerned for disposal according to law, hence therefore, the illegality has been committed. It is further submitted that the notice was not duly served on the petitioner before accepting the final report and while claiming so, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel refers to Annexure-6, a copy of the Lok Adalat’s notice. The submission is that the impugned order dated 12^th November, 2016 at Annexure-4 is, therefore, liable to be set aside followed by consequential directions issued.

4. Mr. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 would submit that there is no wrong or any error committed by the learned court below on account of the default of the petitioner, hence, rightly accepting the final report, dropped the case.

5. Irrespective of any such service of notice on the informant, namely, petitioner with the claim as per Annexure-6, the Court is of the view that the learned court below could not have accepted the final report and ought to have returned the record to the concerned Court for its dispersal as per law. The Court is in agreement with the contention of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, which is based on an order of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kripal Singh Vrs. State of Rajasthan and another, a copy of which is produced at the time of hearing. In other words, it is a fit case, where, the impugned order at Annexure-4 is liable to be interfered with restoring the proceeding in G.R. Case No.393 of 2016 for its dispersal according to law.

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

7. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 12^th November, 2016 at Annexure-4 is hereby set aside with a direction to the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher to proceed with G.R. Case No.393 of 2016 restored to file for its disposal as per and in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in in filling a protest petition to the final report.

8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed (R.K. Pattanaik)

Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHBaCla,r aCmUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:31:25