Bishnu Prasad Bisoyi v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC3 Apr 2025CMAPL/291/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bishnu Prasad Bisoyi v. State of Odisha & others, CMAPL No.291 of 2024, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, M.S. Raman, J., decided 03.04.2025 — allowed: 53 days' delay in filing restoration application condoned; order dated 19.06.2024 dismissing W.P.(C) No.17157 of 2021 for non-prosecution recalled; writ petition restored to original position and to be listed before appropriate roster Bench; earlier D-CMAPL No.28274 of 2024 dismissed by Registry for non-removal of defects; counsel non-appearance/self-illness; condonation of delay; restoration of writ petition dismissed for default.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 53 days' delay in filing CMAPL No.291 of 2024; recall of the order dated 19.06.2024; restoration of W.P.(C) No.17157 of 2021 to its original position; writ petition to be listed before the appropriate roster Bench

Bishnu Prasad Bisoyi Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No.291 of 2024

¶2

Bishnu Prasad Bisoyi

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Gopal Charan Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, AGA (for O.Ps.1,2&4) Mr. Jaykrushna Mohapatra, Advocate (for O.P.3)

CORAM:

Order No.

06.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 03.04.2025

¶12

I.A. No.386 of 2024

¶13

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶14

This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the petition for restoration, being CMAPL No.291 of 2024, which is filed for recalling of the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.17157 of 2021.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

It is submitted by Sri Gopal Charana Mohanty, learned Advocate that due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, there was 53 days’ delay filing the CMAPL. For the nonappearance of the counsel for the petitioner on the date of listing of the writ petition the matter stood dismissed for non-prosecution. It is submitted that the delay caused is not attributable to the petitioner. If the delay is not condoned, serious prejudice would

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

ensue to the petitioner. Per contra, Sri Jaya Krishna Mohapatra, learned counsel opposed vehemently for favourable consideration. The delay being deliberate and due to laches on the part of the counsel for the petitioner, the CMAPL has been filed. It is urged that if the delay is condoned the litigation would be unnecessarily protracted.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner replied that since D- CMAPL No.28274 of 2024 got dismissed by the Registry for nonremoval of defect, the present CMAPL has been filed on 10.09.2024. Therefore, the delay caused in filing CMAPL does require favourable consideration for condonation of delay.

¶20

Perusal of record reveals that the Stamp Reporter pointed out 53 days delay in filing the CMAPL from the date of dismissal of the writ petition, i.e., 19.06.2024 to the date of filing of CMAPL, i.e., 10.09.2024. For the averments made and grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay, and considering the objection made by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.3 and taking note of submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the delay of 53 days in filing instant CMAPL is condoned.

¶21

Accordingly, this I.A. stands disposed of, being allowed.

¶22

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶23

Order No. CMAPL No.291 of 2024

¶24

¶25

The present application has been filed for restoration of the writ petition, i.e ., W.P.(C) No.17157 of 2021 to its original file

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

which stood dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 19.06.2024.

¶28

2 . Sri Gopal Charan Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that due to his non-appearance on the date of listing of the matter, the writ petition stood dismissed for nonprosecution vide order dated 19.06.2024.

¶29

Opposing the petition for restoration, Sri Jaya Krishna Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.3 submitted that since CMAPL No.291 of 2024, which was filed for restoration of the writ petition, got dismissed by the Registry for non-removal of defects, the subsequent CMAPL, being the present one, should not have been filed. He further submitted that in the process, there was a delay of 53 days in filing the CMAPL from the order dated 19.06.2024 till the present CMAPL was filed, i.e., 10.09.2024. He vehemently opposed for restoration of the writ petition.

¶30

Sri Gopal Charan Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in reply thereto, submitted that there is no bar in filing successive CMAPL for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for default and he has cited that for self-illness of the counsel there was non-appearance before this Court on 19.06.2024. He further submitted that the reason for failure to attend the Court is not intentional or deliberate, but for the plausible reasons. Therefore, he would urge that unless the writ petition is restored to file for hearing on merits, serious prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

Considering the averments made in the CMAPL and the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, order dated 19.06.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17157 of 2021 is recalled and W.P.(C) No.17157 of 2021 is restored to its original position.

¶34

Accordingly, the CMAPL is disposed of being allowed and W.P.(C) No.17157 of 2021 be listed before the appropriate roster Bench.

¶35

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶36

MRS

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANORANJAN SAMAL Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 03-Apr-2025 17:13:33

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Bishnu Prasad Bisoyi v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishnu Prasad Bisoyi v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bidyadhar Mallick Vs U.Co Bank

Aparna Agrawalla Vs Sunil Agrawala

Bhikari Charan Sethi Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secretay,Health Dept.Bbsr

Sushil Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Rachana Pothal Vs Debasis Patra

Debasis Patra Vs Rachana Pothal