Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack

Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:42:55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.863 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India)

Rebati Mohapatra …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha, represented through Land Acquisition Officer,

Sambalpur …. Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. B. Sahoo, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. T.K. Dash, AGA CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

18th August 2025

B.P.Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.

T.K. Dash, learned AGA for State – Opposite Party.

2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 22^nd March, 2025 passed in CMA No.2 of 2023 (arising out of Execution Case No.2 of 1993), passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur, wherein the

prayer to restore the execution petition of the DHr. Has been refused.

Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:42:55

3. According to learned trial Judge the prayer to restore the execution petition under Order 21, Rule 106 has been refused on the ground that she did not satisfy any sufficient cause for non-appearance before the court.

4. Present Petitioner being the DHr. has filed afore-stated execution case against State of Odisha for realization of decretal amount consequent upon acquisition of her land. The DHr. (Petitioner) is a lady aged about 79 years and she has stated in her application that when the execution case was fixed on 22^nd December, 2022 there was a serious law and order problem in and around the court area. It is her specific plea that when she came to the court on that date, she was apprehended by police on the apprehension of order passed under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., where her proof of identity was asked for. It is further submitted that on the date fixed, i.e. 22^nd December 2022 neither anyone from the side of the Petitioner nor from the side of Opposite Party were present before the court.

5. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 105 of Order 21 speaks that when on the date fixed for hearing, the applicant does not appear at the time of call for hearing, the court may make an order that the application be dismissed. Rule 106 under Order 21 prescribes that such order passed Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:42:55 under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 105 dismissing the application may be restored / set aside if the party satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the application was called for hearing. This provision is pari-meteria to the provisions contained in Rule 9 and 13 of Order 9 C.P.C.

6. This court in Food Corporation of India v. Jugal Kishore Agrawal, 2001(II) OLR 98, have observed that the expression “sufficient cause” should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented process approach rather than the technical detention of sufficient cause for explaining every days delay. Further in Nakula Swain and Others v. Jogendra Das, 1996 (I) OLR 534, it has been stated that the concept of “sufficient cause” is depending on facts of each case and there cannot be a straight jacket formula to indicate what exactly construes sufficient cause, where peculiar circumstances of each case has also to be taken into consideration.

7. In Parimal vrs. Veena alias Bharti, 2011 (3) SCC 545, Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with a case relating to Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC have observed as follows:

“13. “Sufficient cause” is an expression which has been used in a large number of statutes. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:42:55 may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonabl