IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

AFR

MSA No.37 of 2025

M/s. Trident Properties Pvt. …. Appellant

Limited, Bhubaneswar

Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate

-

-Versus

Abhisek Mohanty & another …. Respondents

Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate

Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate (ORERA)

And

MSA No.38 of 2025

M/s. Trident Properties Pvt. …. Appellant

Limited, Bhubaneswar

Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate

-Ver sus

-

Subash Chandra Dehury & …. Respondents

another

Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate

Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate (ORERA)

CORAM:

JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

DATE OF HEARING: 14.08.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:18.11.2025

1. Both the appeals are disposed of by the following

judgment since a common question of law is involved.

2. Instant appeals under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) are filed by the appellant challenging the impugned orders dated 16^th May, 2025 passed in connection with IA No.28 of 2025 and IA No.368 of 2024 arising out of OREAT Appeal No.12 of 2025 and OREAT Appeal No.182 of 2024 respectively of the learned Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (shortly as ‘the OREAT’), whereby, the applications seeking delay condonation have been disposed of and dismissed being barred by limitation on the grounds inter alia that such decisions are liable to be interfered and set aside since not legally tenable and also in the interest of justice.

3. As the appeals were filed beyond the stipulated period, the appellant moved the applications applying condonation of delay as per Annexure-2 and also deposited the statutory amount in terms of Section 43(5) of the Act securing the sum payable to the respondents by the order of the learned ORERA, to which, objections were received and ultimately, such delay was declined to be condoned on the premise that there is gross negligence on its part and the delay is inordinate without any sufficient cause being shown to explain away. The appellant challenges the decisions in both the appeals on the following grounds, such as, (i) that, the learned OREAT erred in not allowing delay to be condoned adopting a hyper-technical approach without considering the fact that respondents to be in possession of the flats since 2022 and the sole question involved is with regard to the quantum of interest payable; (ii) that, it has been lost sight of by the learned OREAT that substantial justice is to prevail when pitted against technical considerations while dealing with the delay condonation; (iii). that, the reason behind the delay in filing of the appeals has not been appreciated by the learned OREAT in its proper perspective and to allow an opportunity to the appellant to pursue the matter on merits, inasmuch as, the grounds demanding condonation have not been examined before concluding that the same is inordinate and on account of gross negligence and utter callousness from its side.

4. Perused the copies of the appeal memorandums as at Annexure-1 filed before learned OREAT by the appellant.

5. In fact, the proceedings in Complaint Case Nos.34 and 49 of 2018 were initiated against the appellant and the orders passed in Execution Case Nos.12 and 15 of 2019 were challenged and since, in such proceedings, interest on different heads was allowed in favour of the respondents, it was finally challenged by filing the appeals and therein, the delay was declined to be condoned. Such refusal to condone the delay requested by the appellant since was rejected by the learned OREAT, the appellant preferred the present appeals.

6. Heard Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents besides Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the ORERA.

7. The following are the substantial questions of law formulated by the Court for adjudication, such as, (i) whether the impugned orders at Annexure-4 in dismissing the applications for condonation of delay in preferring the appeals are legally tenable? (ii) whether sufficient cause has been assigned by the appel