This order dismisses an appeal filed 323 days late. The High Court finds the applicant's claim of lack of funds unsatisfactory, rejecting it as a ground to condone the delay, and thus dismisses the appeal.
The appeal and the IA were dismissed on the ground of limitation due to unsatisfactory explanation for delay.
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
MACA No.142 of 2018
Babaji Bhoi and Others …. Appellants
Mr. K.C. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
Rashmirekha Das and Another …. Respondents
Mr. R.K. Rath, counsel for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
29.11.2022
Order No.
I.A. No.223 of 2018 & MACA No.142 of 2018
Page 1 of 2
M.K.Panda
Appellants is not found satisfactory to condone the delay. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to condone the limitation. The I.A. is dismissed.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the explanation of lack of funds satisfies the court's requirement to condone a 323-day delay in filing the appeal.
Whether the appeal should be allowed in view of the admitted delay.
Whether to dismiss the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation.
Babaji Bhoi and Others
Rashmirekha Das
Another
B. P. Routray
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
