The High Court of Orissa declined to entertain an application for condonation of delay in filing a revival petition. The Court held that the petitioner has a specific remedy under Section 126(2) CrPC to set aside the ex-parte judgment and advised approaching the Family Court directly.
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT ORISSA C UTT ACK Date: 07-Oct-2024 15:21:36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO. 55 OF 2023
Bishnu Mohapatra …. Petitioner
Mr. Akshaya Kumar Behera, Advocate
-versus-
Nirupama Nayak and others
…. Opp. Parties
Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
05.10.2024
IA No.99 of 2023 & RPFAM No.55 of 2023
Page 1 of 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT ORISSA C UTT ACK Date: 07-Oct-2024 15:21:36
Family Court, Puri may keep in mind that the RPFAM was pending before this Court from 21st February, 2023 till date.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.
s.s.satapathy
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for condonation of delay in filing a revival petition should be entertained given the existence of Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bishnu Mohapatra
Nirupama Nayak
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
