Disposed¶31

Natabar Jena v. Ratnakar Jena

Orissa HC1 Dec 2025FAO/39/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO No.39 of 2023; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Natabar Jena v. Ratnakar Jena & Ors.; condonation of delay; Order 41 Rule 19 CPC; restoration of appeal dismissed for default; RFA No.50 of 2008; T.S. No.94 of 1998; CMA No.10 of 2016; medical certificate; prolonged illness; examination of treating Doctor; Execution Case No.6 of 2016; interim stay of execution proceedings; Additional District Judge Jajpur; Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Jajpur; Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi; order dated 01.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.08.2022 set aside; RFA No.50 of 2008 restored with direction to finally adjudicate it within three months; Appellant permitted to seek stay of Execution Case No.6 of 2016 (application to be decided within one month), with further proceedings in that Execution Case stayed in the interim ¶31

Natabar Jena Vs Ratnakar Jena — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 04.08.2022 of the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur dismissing CMA No.10 of 2016 (filed under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC for condonation of delay and remand of RFA No.50 of 2008, dismissed for default on 26.09.2014) should be set aside in view of the Appellant's prolonged illness, supported by a medical certificate and examination of the treating Doctor

¶13

Court's answer

This Court is of the view that CMA No.10 of 2016 should have been allowed, as the Petitioner (Appellant) was ill during the relevant period and had produced the medical certificate and examined the concerned Doctor before the Court below

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 04.08.2022 passed in CMA No.10 of 2016 is set aside and the learned Court below is directed to restore RFA No.50 of 2008

¶28

Key takeaways

The restored RFA is to be finally adjudicated within three months from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this orderratio¶28
The Appellant is directed to move an application before the learned Court below for staying Execution Case No.6 of 2016, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jajpur, within fifteen working daysratio¶29
The stay application is to be decided within one month after the fifteen-working-day period for filing it expires

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack disposing of FAO No.39 of 2023 (Natabar Jena v. Ratnakar Jena & Ors.). The appeal challenged the order dated 04.08.2022 of the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur dismissing CMA No.10 of 2016 — an application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC for condonation of delay and remand of RFA No.50 of 2008 (corresponding to T.S. No.94 of 1998), which had been dismissed for default on 26.09.2014 owing to the Appellant's prolonged illness from 24.09.2014 to 22.11.2016. Holding that the CMA should have been allowed — the Appellant had produced a medical certificate and examined the treating Doctor before the Court below — the Court set aside the impugned order, directed restoration of the RFA with final adjudication within three months of presentation of an authenticated copy of the order, and stayed further proceedings in Execution Case No.6 of 2016 (Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jajpur) pending the Appellant's stay application, to be moved within fifteen working days and decided within one month thereafter.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

FAO No.39 of 2023

¶3

…. Natabar Jena Appellant(s)

¶4

Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Sr. Adv. along with associates

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Ratnakar Jena & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Mr. Nikunja Kumar Deo, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

¶10

Order ORDER No. 01.12.2025

¶11

¶12

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶13

2 . In filing this FAO, the Appellant has challenged the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur in CMA No.10 of 2016 arising out of RFA No.50 of 2008 corresponding to T.S. No.94 of 1998.

¶14

3 . Heard.

¶15

4 . Challenging the impugned order dated 04.08.2022 learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhuyan, appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the above noted CMA was filed under Order 41 Rule 19 of C.P.C for condonation of delay and remand of the appeal vide RFA No.50 of 2008 which was dismissed for default on 26.09.2014.

¶16

5 . He further contends that due to the prolonged illness of

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

the Appellant for the period from 24.09.2014 to 22.11.2016

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:06:14

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

he could not make necessary communication to his conducting counsel. Hence, on 26.09.2014 the said RFA was dismissed for default. In order to restore the said RFA and condone the delay the Appellant had preferred the above noted CMA which is dismissed on the ground of delay despite best efforts by the Appellant.

¶22

6 . He also contends that in order to strengthen his case though the Appellant produce the medical certificate pertaining to his prolonged illness and examined the concerned Doctor under whom he was being treated, the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur did not pay any attention to the said aspects and dismissed the above noted CMA. He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this FAO.

¶23

7 . In his opposition, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the medical certificate produced by the Appellant at the time of hearing of the above noted CMA was not genuine. Hence, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the said CMA. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this FAO.

¶24

8 . Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and looking to the averments made in this FAO, this Court is of the view that the above noted CMA should

¶25

have been allowed as the Petitioner was ill for the above Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed noted period. Moreover, he had also produced medical

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:06:14

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

certificate and examined the concerned Doctor before the learned Court below at the time of hearing of the above noted CMA. This Court, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2022 passed in the above noted CMA directs the learned Court below to restore the RFA noted hereinabove and make an attempt to finally adjudicate the said RFA within a period of three months from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order.

¶29

9. In view of restoration of the above noted RFA, the Appellant is directed to move an application before the learned Court below for staying the Execution Case bearing No.6 of 2016 which is pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jajpur, within a period of fifteen working days hence which shall be decided within a period of one month thereafter.

¶30

10. Till the application to be filed by the Appellant for staying the above noted Execution Case is taken up by the learned Court below, further proceeding in the above noted Execution Case shall remain stayed.

¶31

11. This FAO is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶32

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶33

Ayaskanta Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:06:14

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Natabar Jena v. Ratnakar Jena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natabar Jena v. Ratnakar Jena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jugeshwar Samarath @ Laxman Samarath Vs Union of India

Niranjan Pradhan Vs Union of India

Philisita Kujur Vs Manasi Badajena

Kiasuni Thakurani Vs Manguli Sundarai

Dibakar Behera Vs Benudhar Pradhan

Pranati Dash Vs the State of Odisha