The High Court of Orissa dismissed an application for condonation of delay of ninety-seven-three days in filing a reference for appeal (RPFAM) against a maintenance order, finding no material support for the petitioner's claim that he learned of the order only in 2015.
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
RPFAM No. 31 OF 2016
Balabhadra Pradhan @ Balaram …. Petitioner Pradhan
Mr. Byomokesh Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
Sailabala Mallia
…. Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
05.01.2023
M.C. No.48 of 2016 & RPFAM No. 31 OF 2016
delay of nine hundred seventy three days in filing the RPFAM.
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
ms
Hence, this Court is not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of nine hundred seventy three days in filing the RPFAM.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of nine hundred seventy three days in filing the reference for appeal should be condoned given the petitioner's inability to know about the order until 2015.
Whether a reference for appeal under Section 125 CrPC can be dismissed for inordinate delay without material supporting condonation.
Balabhadra Pradhan
Sailabala Mallia
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
