The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No.730 of 2023 Tilakraj Sidhana Petitioner Mr. Aswini Kumar Dash, Advocate …. -versus-
Legal Reasoning
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sambalpur Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, Advocate …. Opposite Party Order No. 07.
Decision
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 23.09.2024 CMAPL No.730 of 2023/I.A. No.341 of 2023 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 3288 days in filing the CMAPL, which is filed for recalling of the order dated 10.09.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.4025 of 2004 and for restoration of the said writ petition to its original position. The order dated 10.09.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.4025 of 2004 reads as thus:- “Heard. This matter is being called for last two days. None is appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel appears for O.P. No.1. The matter stands dismissed for non-prosecution.” 3 . The Registry has pointed out a delay of 3288 days in filing the CMAPL for restoration of the writ petition. 4. Notice on the question of limitation being issued to the opposite party on 04.01.2024, Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, learned counsel and his associates have entered appearance in this case on Page 1 of 4 behalf of the sole opposite party and filed objection / counter to the Interlocutory Application for condonation of delay, which is at Flag-B of the brief. It is submitted by him that there is inordinate delay in filing the CMAPL and the same is not supported by sufficient cause. 5. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that while dismissing the writ petition on 10.09.2014 this Court observed that the writ petition was being called for hearing for two days, but there was non-appearance for the petitioner. The laches on the part of the petitioner or his counsel is not countenanced by sufficient cause. 7. The cause of delay shown in paragraphs-3, 4, 5 and 6 in the Interlocutory Application No.341 of 2023 reads as thus:- “3. That in spite of repeated memo the original Writ petition had not been listed. However the original W.P.(C) No.4025 of 2003 has been listed on 15.07.2014 for fresh admission and this Hon’ble Court issue notice to the Opp. Party. Accordingly steps had been taken against Opp. Party and the Opp. Party appeared in this Writ application. 4. That on 10.09.2014 the Opp. Party company appeared in this Hon’ble Court but did not file any reply to the Writ petition and the date of posting had not been detected by the petitioner, through oversight for non- and prosecution on 10.09.2014. 5. That till September, 2023 the petitioner has no knowledge about the dismissal of the Writ application and in the month of September the petitioner filed a memo for the listing of this case and a particular date has been given by this Hon’ble Court. Since the matter had not been listed the petitioner made contact with the court master of this Hon’ble Court and came to know the disposal of the Writ application. The petitioner had the writ petition was dismissed Page 2 of 4 for applied the order the certified copy of dtd.10.09.2014 on 04.10.2023 and copy has been this CMAPL received on 06.10.2023. Thereafter No.730 of 2023 has been filed on 13.10.2023 as such there is delay for 9 years. That the delay in filing the CMAPL is neither 6. intentional nor any otherwise motive but due to lack of knowledge of the petitioner, which may kindly be considered for the ends of justice.” 8. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has objected to the above plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to paragraph-3 of the objection / counter filed by the opposite party, which reads as thus:- That, before giving parawise reply to in various paragraphs of the “3. the averments made application for condonation of delay, at the outset the Deponent begs to submit that the alleged incident for filing of the writ petition, as described in this application, took place on 10.08.2000 and the writ was filed on 29.03.2004, vide W.P.(C) No.4025 of 2004 and the same was listed on 15.07.2014 for fresh admission, when notice was issued against the Opp. Party. In response to the notice, the Opp. Party appeared through their Advocate. Thereafter, the case was listed for twice, but the Petitioner was found to be absent on both occasion. Finally, the writ petition was listed on 10.09.2014 and as the Petitioner was found to be absent for three consecutive dates, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the case for non-prosecution. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 10.09.2014 and needs no interference of this Hon’ble Court. From the approach of the Petitioner in prosecuting the writ petition and his seriousness towards his so called plight can be well judged. The above conduct of the Petitioner has an important bearing with merits of the case and fair disposal of the present CMAPL, which has been filed more than nine Page 3 of 4 years after the order of dismissal of the writ petition, without assigning sufficient cause for condonation of such inordinate delay. Hence, the Petitioner does not deserve to get any equitable remedy, as prayed for.” 9. This Court finds no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 3288 days in filing the CMAPL and also there is no explanation as to why the conducting counsel for the petitioner did not appear before this Court when the writ petition was called for hearing for two days, as reflected in the order dated 10.09.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.4025 of 2004. 10. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to condone such inordinate delay of 3288 days in filing the CMAPL. Hence, the Interlocutory Application stands dismissed. 11. Accordingly, this CMAPL stands dismissed being barred by limitation. (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANORANJAN SAMAL Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 23-Sep-2024 17:40:30 Page 4 of 4