The High Court dismissed an application for restoration of an appeal. The court refused to condone the seven-year delay in curing procedural defects, noting the initial appeal was itself delayed.
The condonation of delay application (CMAPL) stands dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMAPL No.811 of 2015
Sasmita Moharana
…. Petitioner
Mr. Ashok Kumar Behera, Advocate
-versus-
Padmalochan Maharana
…. Opposite Party
None
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN
ORDER
07.12.2022
Order No.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(M. S. Raman)
Judge
Laxmikant/Aks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a condonation of delay application filed seven years after the initial notice deserves consideration despite outstanding defects.
Whether the High Court should condone the delay in filing the appeal given the persistent failure to cure defects over seven years.
Sasmita Moharana
Padmalochan Maharana
M. S. Raman
S. Muralidhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
