Deity Sri Radhakanta Mahaprabhu,Bije,Randha Vs Radhakrushna Sahu

AD of limitation notice issued to Opposite Party No.1 to 8 received after valid service. Opposite Party Nos.2 and 5 to 8 appear through Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel and his associates. Notice on Opposite Party No.1, 3 and 4 returned after personal service. But no counsel has yet appeared on their behalf. Neither A.D. nor the undelivered notice issued against the Opposite Party No.9 has yet been received.

Mr. Haque, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that since the notice on Opposite Party No.9 was sent in his correct address and in the meantime more than one month has elapsed, notice on him be treated to be sufficient under Order V Rule 9(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, he prays for taking up I.A. No.36 of 2023 for Orders. In view of the submission made, notice on Opposite Party No.9 is treated to be sufficient.

On consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the I.A. for condonation of delay is taken up for consideration.

Page 1 of 1

¶18

It is submitted by Mr. Haque, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the name of the learned counsel, namely, Mr.S.S.Rao was wrongly reflected in the cause list dated 30^th August, 2022 and 20^th September, 2022. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner could not know about the listing of the matter. As such they could not remain present when the matter was called on the aforesaid dates. No sooner, it came to their knowledge that the CMP has been dismissed for non-prosecution; the instant CMAPL has been filed. As there was a delay of 78 days in filing the CMAPL, the instant I.A. has been filed for condonation of delay. He, therefore, submits that delay in filing the CMAPL is unintentional and is bona fide . Hence, the delay is condoned and the CMAPL is heard on merit.

Mr. A.K.Behera, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.2 and 5 to 8 submits that the delay has not been properly explained in the petition for condonation of delay. Hence, the I.A. merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that in the cause list dated 20^th September, 2022 on which the CMP was dismissed for non-prosecution, name of Mr. S.S.Rao, learned counsel (presently Senior Advocate) was wrongly stated as Mr.S.S.Ray. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner might have overlooked the cause list. As such, this Court finds that the delay caused in filing the CMAPL is not intentional and is bona fide . Hence, delay of 78 days in filing the CMAPL is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to Mr.Behera, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 5 to 8 within a period of seven days. Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed 8. Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication 9. Location: OHC Date: 09-May-2025 20:03:55

Himansu

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Deity Sri Radhakanta Mahaprabhu,Bije,Randha v. Radhakrushna Sahu