Dismissed
Naresh Ch.Mohapatra v. Bishnupriya Mangaraj
Orissa HCRSA/330/2017
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
No.330 of 2017 11.01.2018 Misc. Case No.612…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.S.A. No.330 of 2017
11.01.2018
Misc. Case No.612 of 2017
This misc. case has been filed for condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Heard Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. K
. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.
3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is
delay of 1125 days in filing appeal and there is sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accor
ding to him, the judgment was passed by the learned Appellate Court on 5th March, 2014 and one
of his brother, Sri Kailash Chandra Mohapatra was looking after the case but the later became
bed-ridden. In December, 2013, the wife of the appellant suffered from brain stroke and
consequently, the appellant was busy in attending her. Since he is the only male member to loo
k after all affairs of the family including the illness of his wife, there is delay in filing
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant cited the decisions reported in 2016 (II) CL
R (SC)-534; Imrat Lal and others-vrs.- Land Acquisition Collector and others wherein, Their L
ordships observed that since villagers in India are by and large illiterate, not conversant wi
th the intricacies of law, usually guided by the co-villagers, the delay in filing appeal shou
ld be condoned.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the suit land is a valu
able piece of land for him and it has fallen to his share after partition between the brothers
in 2009 and 2010 and the original plaintiffs who are now respondents have no right over the s
ame. He further cited the decisions reported in 2010 (II) CRL (SC)-240; Improvement Trust, Lud
hiana v. Ujagar Singh and others wherein, Their Lordships observed that liberal
approach should be taken to condone the delay and there should be always attempt to be made to
contest the matter, rather than to go through it on such technicalities that it is barred by
the limitation. Since it has sufficient good cause, the delay should be condoned and admit th
e appeal.
6. Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents submits that th
e delay has not been explained at all because the delay has to be explained for each and every
day from the date of disposal of R.F.A. There is nothing available from the petition as to fr
om which date to which date the appellants wife was suffering from illness and any sort of dis
sension between the brothers of the appellant, it is private cause and no way helpful to condo
ne the delay. In toto, he submits that there is no any sufficient cause to condone the delay f
or which the petition under section 5 of the Limitation should be rejected.
7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent cited the decision rep
orted in AIR 1998 SC 2276; P.K. Ramachandran-vrs.-State of Kerala and another wherein Their Lo
rdships observed that law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour prescribed by st
atute and courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. He als
o cited the decisions reported in AIR 2014 SC 1612; Brijesh Kumar and others v. State of Harya
na and others wherein Their Lordships held that sufficient cause is a condition precedent for
exercising discretion for condoning the delay and the Court cannot condone the delay on sympat
hetic ground.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents also cited the decision reported in AIR 20
10 SC 3043; Balwant Singh (Dead)-v- Jagdish Singh & Ors. wherein Their Lordships observed that
sufficient cause means the presence of legal and
adequate reasons and the court must also take into account the conduct to the parties, bona fi
de reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the app
licant with normal care and caution. It is also held that the application for limitation canno
t be allowed as a matter of right and even if as a routine manner. So, he submits to reject th
e petition for condonation of delay.
9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the respective parties.
After going through all the decisions, it is very clear that sufficient cause in every appeal
should be decided basing on the facts and circumstances of each case. No doubt, the merits of
the case will be considered provided there is sufficient cause available to condone the delay
. In the instant case, one of the cause for condoning delay because of the strain relationship
with the brother of the appellant who was looking after the case cannot be a ground to keep t
he appellant away from the case as he is the ultimate beneficiary of the appeal filed if it go
es in his favour. Apart from this, the delay has been also explained stating that his wife was
ill having suffered from brain stroke and his child is reading in the school but it is not av
ailable from the petition for condonation of delay as to from which period to which period his
wife was suffering from disease, although it has been mentioned that since December, 2013 his
wife was ill. Apart from this, as it appears that this is a concurrent findings of the courts
below where the present appellant lost in both the courts below. Even if for argument shake t
he wife was ill for some time and the brother of the appellant has not cooperated for the dela
y, 1125 days of delay is really the long delay and the causes taken for condoning such delay a
re not sufficient. The sufficient cause cannot be stated to stretch to any extent but it shoul
d have limitation
relating to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court is not convinced that there is
sufficient cause to condone the delay from the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the
petition for condonation of delay stands rejected.
R.S.A. No.330 of 2017
In view of the order dated 11.01.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 612 of 2017, the second
appeal stands dismissed.
2
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Imrat Lal and others-vrs.- Land Acquisition Collector and othersReferred¶3
2016 (II) CLR (SC)-534
Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh and othersReferred¶4
2010 (II) CRL (SC)-240
P.K. Ramachandran-vrs.-State of Kerala and anotherDistinguished¶7
AIR 1998 SC 2276 · Who else cites this
Brijesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and othersReferred¶7
AIR 2014 SC 1612 · Who else cites this
Balwant Singh (Dead)-v- Jagdish Singh & Ors.Referred¶8
AIR 2010 SC 3043 · Who else cites this
Appellant
Respondents
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court