The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13184 of 2025 Premanand Nag …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Parida, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO Order No. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA ORDER 10.12.2025 04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the Premanand Nag with a prayer for setting aside the order date 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short, “Tribunal”) in M.A. No.260/00225 of 2024 & M.A. No.260/00226 of 2024, in dismissing both the Miscellaneous Applications. Needless to say that the M.A. No.260/00225 of 2024 was filed for restoration of O.A. No.521 of 2013, which was dismissed for default for non-prosecution on behalf of the petitioner on 27.03.2019 and M.A. No.260/00226 of 2024 was filed to condone the delay Page 1 of 10 in filing the Miscellaneous Application i.e., M.A. No.260/00225 of 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed the copy of the Original Application, which is taken on record. In the said Original Application, the prayer was made before the Tribunal to set aside the order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Revisionary Authority & Addl. Divisional Railway Manager, Sambalpur, opposite party no.2 so also order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority & Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Sambalpur, opposite party no.3 and also the order of removal of the petitioner from service dated 19.12.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority & Asst. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, East Coast Railway, Sambalpur, opposite party no.4. It appears that the O.A. was listed on 17.01.2019, nobody was present for the petitioner and accordingly, the matter was adjourned and it was listed again on 27.03.2019 but since no one was present on that day, the O.A. was dismissed for default. The order dated 27.03.2019 is quoted herein below: “None is present on behalf of the applicant. None was present on behalf of the applicant on previous date on 17.1.2019. Page 2 of 10 It seems that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing this case. The OA is therefore dismissed in default the for non-prosecution on behalf of applicant.
Legal Reasoning
backed by proper documents, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S. S. Mishra) Judge Pravakar Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Dec-2025 19:31:49 Page 10 of 10
Arguments
Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel is present on behalf of Dr. C.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents”. The Miscellaneous Application vide M.A. No.260/00225 of 2024 was filed on 02.04.2024 for restoring the O.A. No. 521 of 2013 and grounds have been taken that since the Advocate of the petitioner was ill on 27.03.2019, he could not see the list and depended on his associates, for which, they lost sight of posting of the case for hearing on 27.03.2019. It is further stated that the wife of the petitioner was ill, for which he was engaged himself to give her medical treatment from January 2019 to 20th January 2023 on which date, his wife expired due to chest cancer. It is further stated that after the death of the wife, the petitioner forgot about the pending case in the Tribunal and did not come to meet his advocate due to heavy mental pressure and stress and also an account of financial disability from 2019 to March 2024 and ultimately, the petitioner after inspection on 27.03.2024 came to know that the case was dismissed for default on 27.03.2019. It is further stated that neither the petitioner nor his Advocate Page 3 of 10 knew about the posting of the case on different dates for hearing and therefore, their non-appearance was not intentional and that the petitioner had taken all due care and caution for prosecuting the case since 2013 and that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance on 27.03.2029 and accordingly, prayer was made to restore the O.A. No.521 of 2013 to file and post the same for hearing. The Miscellaneous Application which was filed with M.A. No.260/00225 of 2024 was registered as M.A. No.260/00226 of 2024, in which prayer has been made to condone the delay that has occurred in filing the M.A. No.225 of 2024. The learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold that the order of termination is dated 19.12.2012 and the O.A. was dismissed on 27.03.2019 and therefore, allowing the Miscellaneous Applications at the belated stage would ultimately unsettle a settled matter after long lapse of time. Though it is stated that the petitioner was engaged in the treatment of his wife but nothing has been stated regarding the fault of the advocate/his associates for non-appearing on consecutive dates when the O.A. was listed or for not taking steps after dismissal of the O.A. for its restoration. The learned Tribunal found that no plausible explanation has been furnished by the Page 4 of 10 petitioner for the delay caused even from January, 2023 till the date of filing of the M.A. on 02.04.2024. Further, no affidavit or documents has been filed by the concerned Advocate for his non-appearance on the date when the matter was dismissed for default or regarding missing of the file. The learned Tribunal came to hold that after the dismissal of the Original Application for default, a free copy of the order was issued on 29.03.2019 to the petitioner as revealed from the notes of the Registry. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was of the view that allowing the prayer made in the M.As. at the belated stage to adjudicate a dispute which was set at rest since 2012 and finally, after dismissal of the O.A. for default in 2019, would not be proper and as no sufficient cause for not prosecuting the O.A. was shown. Accordingly, both the Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner repeated the same arguments which were advanced before the learned Tribunal during the hearing of the Miscellaneous Applications and he has also produced the medical documents to show the ailment of the wife of the petitioner. It appears that those are the documents which show that the wife of the petitioner was given treatment in 2019 and 2020 and the last document was Ultra Sound report, which is dated 31st Page 5 of 10 August, 2021. When a case has been instituted by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal way back in 2013, it was his responsibility to keep in touch with the learned counsel and to know the orders passed by the learned Tribunal time to time. In the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. -Vrs.- Ved Prakash reported in 2024 INSC 891, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to judicial be equally vigilant about proceedings pending in the Court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief”. the In the case of Salil Dutta -Vrs.- T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd. reported in (1993) 2 Supreme Court Page 6 of 10 Cases 185, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “8. The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal i.e. the party who engaged him. It is true that in certain situations, the Court may, in the interest of justice, set aside a dismissal order or an ex parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and/or misdemeanor of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is no such absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be recognized. Such an absolute rule would make the working of the system extremely difficult. The observations made in Rafiq [(1981) 2 SCC 788: AIR 1981 SC 1400] must be understood in the facts and circumstances of that case and cannot be understood as an absolute proposition. As we have mentioned hereinabove, this was an on-going suit posted for final hearing after a lapse of seven years of its institution. It was not a second appeal filed by a villager residing away from the city, where the Court is located. The defendant is also not a rustic limited ignorant villager but a private company with its head-office at Calcutta educated itself businessmen who know where their interest lies. their applications were not disposed of before and managed that when is evident by It Page 7 of 10 taking up the suit for final hearing they felt piqued and refused to appear before the court. May be, it was part of their delaying tactics as alleged by the plaintiff. May be not. But one thing is clear - they chose to the court. Having non-cooperate with adopted such a stand towards the court, the defendant has no right to ask its indulgence. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted”. It is pertinent to take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nitin Mahadeo Jawale -Vrs.- Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3468. In the said case, while upholding the dismissal of an order condoning delay of four years, the Hon’ble Apex Court had noted the growing tendency of litigants to shift all the blame on their prior counsel. It was noted that even if it is to be considered that the concerned lawyer was negligent, the same by itself is not a ground to condone delay as the litigant ought to be vigilant about the judicial proceedings. The relevant portion of the decision is as under: “4. It appears from the materials on record that as the defendants failed to file their written statement in time the stage to file Page 8 of 10 to file written statement was closed. Thereafter permission of the Trial Court was prayed for to file the written statement after a period of over 4‰ years. The Trial Court permitted the defendants their written statement. The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the same challenged the order passed by the Trial Court permitting the defendants to file written statement after a period of 4‰ years. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the trial court. 5. We find no error not to speak of any error of law in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. 6. We have noticed over a period of time the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate. Not only this, we have come across cases where the concerned advocate has filed an affidavit in favour of his client(s) saying that he was unable to attend the proceedings due to some personal reasons difficulties thereby facilitating the litigant to get the delay condoned. 7. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in Page 9 of 10 the court initiated at his instance. 8. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.” It appears that the petitioner was not vigilant and therefore, shifting the blame on the advocate that he missed the list or that his wife was under treatment from 2019 till her death, which is not