The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.28852 of 2025 Gouribala Das …. Petitioner Mr. B.B. Mishra, Advocate -Versus- Ramachandra Das and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 01. 1.
Decision
ORDER 15.10.2025 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 30th June, 2025 at Annexure-7 passed in connection with El. M.C. No.8 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division 1st Court, Cuttack, whereby, an application as per Annexure-4 to examine the issue of limitation independently demanded by him has been rejected. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application dated 6th May, 2025 as per Annexure-4 was pressed into service before the learned court below seeking an order on limitation during the pendency of the election proceeding but it has resulted in passing of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-7. The submission is that the question on limitation should have been entertained by the learned court below in view of the Court’s order in W.P.(C) Page 1 of 5 No.28636 of 2022 dated 15th November, 2022 but the same has been rejected vide Annexure-7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel would further submit that an election petition cannot be entertained unless it is within time and in case of delay, any such application seeking condonation for such delay is received from the election petitioner and in the case at hand, no such application was filed by opposite party No.1, hence, therefore, the petition under Section 30 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (herein after referred to ‘the Act’) is not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed at the threshold. Such is the submission in view of the liberty granted to the petitioner by this Court vide Annexure-3, wherein, it has been observed that in the event, there is a requirement for considering any such question of limitation, it shall be entertained and determined independently by the learned court below. It is submitted that the election petition should not have been entertained at all without an application for delay condonation filed by opposite party No.1, hence, therefore, a direction is required to be issued in that regard to consider the question of limitation before the proceeding is finally disposed of. 4. Recorded the submission of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State appearing for proforma opposite party No.2. No notice is issued to opposite party No.1 as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. Page 2 of 5 5. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election proceeding is pending at the stage of argument. 6. Perused the application of the petitioner as at Annexure-4 and objection of opposite party No.1 i.e. Annexure-5 dated 6th May, 2025 followed by the impugned order dated 30th June, 2025 as at Annexure-7. 7. The submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the election petition is time barred and it has not been accompanied with any such application for delay condonation as required in terms of Section 31(1) second proviso thereto which stipulates that the Court concerned may exercise it discretion and condone the delay provided sufficient cause is shown towards the same. The claim is that opposite party No.1 did not file any such application seeking the delay to be condoned. It is the claim of opposite party No.1, as further submitted, that he did not know about the date of notification at the time when the election petition was filed but referring to a copy of the deposition of the Election Officer, namely, opposite party No.2 examined as D.W.1 at Annexure-6, it is opposed, as the date of notification with the result of the election to have been declared on 2nd March, 2022, hence, therefore, the cause of action to file the election petition is from the said date, which could not have escaped the notice of the election petitioner but then, there is delay and no application was filed for condonation of the same. Page 3 of 5 8. Even though, the evidence is concluded and the direction as per Annexure-3 is to the effect that issue of limitation is to be examined by the learned court below finally but at the same time, in view of the liberty granted to the petitioner to move an application on such issue for being dealt with independently, the Court is of the view that such an application as per Annexure-4 should have been accordingly considered and disposed of. The Court is of the further view that when an election petition may be entertained in terms of Section 31(1) of the Act and in case of delay, it shall have to be justified with sufficient cause being shown by the election petitioner, in view of the submission by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not supported by any such application demanding condonation of delay, it would be proper to direct the learned court below to consider the objection as per Annexure-4 afresh in view of the order at Annexure-3, notwithstanding, the hearing of the election proceeding to be at the fag end pending disposal, as such an exercise is necessary in the interest of justice and accordingly, it is ordered. 9. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be complied with considering the application of the petitioner as per Annexure-4 restored to file. It is further directed that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Cuttack shall independently examine Annexure-4 without being influenced by any of the Page 4 of 5 observations made herein above but in light of the order at Annexure-3 and to dispose it of considering any such further objection of opposite party No.1 apart from Annexure-5 and to pass appropriate order as per and in accordance with law at the earliest preferably within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 30th June, 2025 at Annexure-7 is hereby set aside. 10. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R. K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 16-Oct-2025 13:58:29 Page 5 of 5