##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMAPL No. 273 of 2024

An application under Chapter VIII, Rule-30 of the Orissa

High Court Rules, 1948, for restoration.

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

Manoj Kumar Sahoo and Others …. Petitioners

-versus-

Ram Devi Sahoo & Others …. Opp. Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

_______________________________________________________

For Petitioners : M/s. B. Mohanty, S. Sahoo &

N.K. Rout, Advocates

Vs.

For Opp. Parties : M/s. A.K. Jena, R.N. Swain,

A.P. Rath & P. Sinha, Advocates

__________________________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

23.12.2025

I.A. No.459 of 2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This an application filed by the petitioners

seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for

Page 1 of 8

restoration (CMAPL) to restore the Second Appeal

dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. S.R. has pointed out delay of 1356 days. It is

stated under paragraph-3 of the application that the

petitioners had no knowledge about the Second Appeal

being dismissed for non-prosecution and came to know

only on 09.08.2025, when they received notice of the

execution proceeding.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the appeal was admitted and substantial

questions of law were framed. However, since the

conducting lawyer had missed the list, the Second Appeal

was dismissed for default. This fact was not communicated

to the petitioners and as such they remained in the dark

and came to know only after receiving notice in the

execution proceeding. It is further submitted that unless

the delay is condoned, the petitioners would be put to

severe loss. In support of the submissions, two judgments

of the Supreme Court has been cited by Mr. Mohanty,

namely, N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy [Civil

Page 2 of 8

Appeal Nos. 4575-76 of 1998 (@SLP (C) No.8712-13 of

1998)] decided on 03.09.1996 and Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Subrata Borah Chowlek

and Others, [Civil Appeal Nos. 9726-9727 of 2010

(arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 14520-14521 of 2010)

decided on 12.11.2010.

4. Per contra, Mr. Jena has opposed the prayer for

condonation by submitting that the conduct of the

petitioners does not entitle them to any liberal

consideration. He refers to the order sheet of the Second

Appeal to submit that the petitioners were very negligent in

conducting the Second Appeal also. Merely by claiming that

they had no knowledge of the dismissal of the appeal they

cannot be said to have shown sufficient cause for the

inordinate delay.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this

Court deems it proper to first refer to the judgments cited

above. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra),

the Supreme Court held as follows:-

Page 3 of 8

“7. Having heard the learned counsel, we

are of the opinion that in the instant case a

sufficient cause had been made out for

condonation of delay in filing the appeal and

therefore, the High Court erred in declining to

condone the same. It is true that even upon

showing a sufficient cause, a party is not

entitled to the condonation of delay as a matter

of right, yet it is trite that in construing

sufficient cause, the Courts generally follow a

liberal approach particularly when no

negligence, inaction or mala fides can be

imputed to the party, (See: Shakuntala Devi

Jain v. Kuntal Kumari and Others MANU/ SC/

0335/1968:(1969) 1 SCR 1006; The State of

West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah

Municipality and Others. MANU/SC/

0534/1971 : (1972) 1 SCC 366; N.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

MANU/SC/0573/1998 (1998) 7 SCC 123; Sital

Prasad Saxena v. Union of India and Others;

MANU /SC/0294/1984 : (1985) 1 SCC 163).”

(Emphasis added)

6. In the said case, the Supreme Court also relied

upon its earlier judgment passed in Ram Nath Sao Alias

Ram Nath Sahu and Others v. Gobardhan Sao and

Others, (2002) 3 SCC 195, wherein the following was

held:-

“But one thing is clear that the courts

should not proceed with the tendency of finding

fault with the cause shown and reject the

petition by