Dismissed¶19

Bidyadhar Behera v. Haripriya Behera

Orissa HC21 Jan 2025RPFAM/271/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court (G. Satapathy, J.), order dated 21.01.2025 in RPFAM No.271 of 2024 with I.A. No.369 of 2024: application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone 577 days' delay in filing revision petition against Family Court, Baripada judgment dated 26.10.2022 rejected; petitioner's plea of ignorance of the judgment, illness and age of 68 years (unsupported by documents) held inadequate; I.A. dismissed and revision petition not admitted.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was not diligent but negligent, and the Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered for the 577-day delay; the delay cannot be condoned on the explanation given. ¶17

Bidyadhar Behera Vs Haripriya Behera — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No.271 of 2024

¶2

Bidyadhar Behera …

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Ms. R.R. Pradhan, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Haripriya Behera & Another … Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶8

ORDER(ORAL)

¶9

Order No. 01.

¶10

21.01.2025 I.A. No. 369 of 2024 & RPFAM No. 271 of 2024

¶11

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶12

This is an application U/S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 577 days in preferring the revision petition.

¶13

Heard, Ms. Rashmi Rekha Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. In order to explain the cause of delay, the petitioner has averred the following in paragraph-3 of the petition:-

¶14

“ 3. That it is humbly submitted that the appellant has no knowledge about passing of the Judgement by the Judge Family Court, Baripada. She only came to know about the same in the month of March 2023 from his conducting counsel and thereafter collected all documents from him. The appellant was also ill for some time thereafter and also unable to move. The petitioner is not able to move due to his old age diseases. After that she contacted her

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

advocate at cuttack in the month of November 2023 for filing of the MATA and as per his advise he contacted the advocate at Baripada and obtained the certified copy of the Judgement dt.26.10.2022 and all other documents. The petitioner handed over the documents to the advocate at cuttack in the month of April 2024 and the case is filed thereafter. The delay caused in filing the RPFAM is neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay caused due to ignorance and also due to illness of the appellant.”

¶17

A bare perusal of the aforesaid averments, it goes without saying that the petitioner is not diligent, rather he was negligent and thereby, the delay has occurred while preferring this revision before this Court. Delay of smaller duration could have been considered on the ground that the petitioner has no knowledge, but inordinate delay of 577 days cannot be taken so lightly to be condoned on the explanation as offered by the petitioner in the preceding paragraph. Ordinarily, it is not sufficient to condone the delay in preferring the revision petition merely because the petitioner is aged about 68 years and was suffering from some ailment, which is not supported by any document. There cannot be any straight jacket formula for condoning the long delay, but each case has to be considered on the basis of the facts involved therein. In this case, this Court is not at all satisfied with the explanation as offered by the petitioner for condonation of such a long delay of 577 days.

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

Accordingly, the I.A. No.369 of 2024 merits no consideration and is accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the present revision petition is not admitted.

¶20

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶21

S. Sasmal

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Jan-2025 11:08:08

¶24

Page 3 of 3

Bidyadhar Behera v. Haripriya Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bidyadhar Behera v. Haripriya Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Rath Vs State of Odisha (Opid)

Dambarudhara Khilla Vs State of Odisha

Satya Prakash @ Bubun Rout Vs State of Odisha

Chinmaya Rout @ Chinu Vs State of Odisha

Sunil Tafali Vs Pratima Tafali@ Mandal