Dismissed

Jagannath Nanda v. Subash Ch.Mishra

Orissa HC6 Aug 2019MATA/67/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay for filing an appeal in a custody matter. The Court found the explanation of delay (work in Hyderabad, notice receipt date omission) insufficient and noted the appellant did not examine himself in the earlier petition. Consequently, the appeal was held not maintainable and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Misc. Case No.109 of 2017 is dismissed; the main appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

Jagannath Nanda Vs Subash Ch.Mishra — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

MATA No.67 of 2017

¶2

06.08.2019 MATA No.67 of 2017 and Misc. Case No.109 of 2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent/ opposite party.

¶3

This Misc. Case has been filed for condonation of delay of 137 days in preferring the MATA.

¶4

The appellant/ petitioner has stated that he works for gain at Hyderabad and he came to know about the order only after getting notice from the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jeypore in Cr.P. No.32 of 2017. He, thereafter, immediately asked for the certified copy of the order from his local counsel. After obtaining the certified copy, he contacted the lawyer at Cuttack and he was advised to prefer an appeal. He further stated that as he is working in a company it was also difficult on his part to take leave regularly. However, this matter being related to the custody of his daughter, he tried his best to prefer this appeal without any further delay.

¶5

Curiously enough the appellant has not reflected in the application for condonation of delay the date in which he received the notice in Cr.P. No.32 of 2017 of the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jeypore. So, each day of delay has not been explained and a feeble attempt has been made to seek condonation of delay. However, in the aforesaid entire period as he was attending the office at Hyderabad, he could have contacted with his Lawyer and could have contested the case.

¶6

It is also borne out from the records that in the Guardian Petition No.3 of 2015 in which the impugned

¶7

¶8

order has been passed, he has not examined himself as a witness.

¶9

In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 137 days in preferring the appeal.

¶10

Hence, Misc. Case No.109 of 2017 is dismissed. Consequently, since the appeal is filed in late, the same is not maintainable and therefore, the same is dismissed.

¶11

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶12

………………………..

¶13

S. K. Mishra, J.

¶14

….…………………………. Dr. A.K. Mishra, J.

¶15

Jagannath Nanda v. Subash Ch.Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Nanda v. Subash Ch.Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swagatika Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Ram Ch.Parida Vs State

Prasant Ku.Nayak Vs State

Sanjeeb Ku.Pramanik Vs Saswati Kantha

Abhaya Ku.Singh Vs Rekha Singh

Abhaya Ku.Singh Vs Rekha Singh