Disposed¶22

Prem Kishor Panda v. Kasturi Biswal

Orissa HC23 Feb 2026CMP/253/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court CMP Art.227 leave to appeal non-party suit CS No.45 of 2018 judgment 18.01.2022 Senior Civil Judge Bolangir; leave order 29.10.2025 District Judge Balangir CMA No.20 of 2023; appeal RFA No.21 of 2023; delay and limitation in seeking leave left to pending appeal; no interference; disposed 23.02.2026; Prem Kishor Panda v. Kasturi Biswal & Ors.

What did the court decide?

The Petitioner was granted leave to raise the ground of limitation/delay, if so advised, in the pending appeal RFA No.21 of 2023, with the direction that the first appellate court consider it strictly in accordance with law; the impugned order was not quashed. ¶22

Prem Kishor Panda Vs Kasturi Biswal — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 29.10.2025 of the learned District Judge, Balangir granting leave to Opposite Party No.1 to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 18.01.2022 in CS No.45 of 2018 should be quashed on the ground that the delay in approaching the court for leave was not considered.

¶18

Court's answer

Since Opposite Party No.1 was not a party to CS No.45 of 2018, the judgment dated 18.01.2022 was not within its knowledge, and being a non-party it could not have preferred an appeal without leave even though it claimed to be affected by the final judgment; therefore the learned First Appellate Court committed no illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The ground of limitation and the delay in seeking leave to prefer an appeal can be raised by the Petitioner in the pending appeal; the CMP is disposed of by granting the Petitioner leave to raise that ground, if so advised, in RFA No.21 of 2023, and the first appellate court shall consider it strictly in accordance with law.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Art. 227 — CMP No.253 of 2026 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J., order dated 23.02.2026): Prem Kishor Panda, not a party to CS No.45 of 2018 (decided 18.01.2022 by Senior Civil Judge, Bolangir), challenged the order dated 29.10.2025 of the District Judge, Balangir in CMA No.20 of 2023 granting Opposite Party No.1 (also a non-party) leave to prefer an appeal, subsequently registered as RFA No.21 of 2023, contending that the substantial delay in seeking leave had been ignored. The Court held that a non-party could not have appealed without leave and the judgment was not within its knowledge, so the first appellate court committed no illegality warranting interference; it declined to quash the order and disposed of the CMP by permitting the Petitioner to raise the limitation/delay ground in the pending appeal, to be examined strictly in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.253 of 2026

¶2

Prem Kishor Panda ..... Petitioner

¶3

Represented by Adv. - Trilochan Nanda

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Kasturi Biswal & Ors.

¶6

..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. -

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

23.02.2026

Order No.

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

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶15

By filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who was not arrayed as a party to CS No.45 of 2018, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Balangir in CMA No.20 of 2023 thereby granting leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 18.01.2022 passed in CS No.45 of 2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bolangir. He further contended that after the leave was granted an appeal has been filed by the Opposite Party No.1 which has been registered as RFA No.21 of 2023.

¶16

While assailing the order granting leave dated 29.10.2025,

¶17

Page 1 of 3.

¶18

learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that while granting leave the learned first appellate court has not taken into consideration the delay in filing such appeal. He further contended that before granting leave the learned first appellate court should have considered the substantial delay in approaching the court seeking leave to prefer an appeal. Since, the delay part in approaching the learned first appellate court for grant of leave has not been taken into consideration, therefore, the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 is bad in law. Accordingly, it was prayed that such order be quashed.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, this Court is of the view that the Opposite Party No.1 was not party to the CS No.45 of 2018 which was disposed of on 18.01.2022. Therefore, the judgment dated 18.01.2022 was not within the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.1. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.1 being not a party to the suit could not have preferred any appeal without the leave of the court although they claimed that they have been affected by the final judgment dated 18.01.2022. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the learned First Appellate Court has not committed any illegality which would warrant interference by this Court. However, the ground of limitation and the delay in seeking leave to prefer an appeal can very well be raised in the pending appeal by the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, the present CMP application is being disposed of by granting leave to the Petitioner to raise the ground of limitation, if so advised, in the pending appeal and, in such eventuality, the learned first appellate court shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law while

¶20

Page 2 of 3.

¶21

hearing the pending RFA No.21 of 2023.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CMP application stands disposed of.

¶23

( A.K. Mohapatra)

¶24

Judge

¶25

Anil

¶26

Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3.

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Feb-2026 12:18:21

Prem Kishor Panda v. Kasturi Biswal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Kishor Panda v. Kasturi Biswal

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

Kunja Bihari Sarap Vs State of Odisha

Soraf Ali Khan Vs Amrit Ruturaj, Collector and Dist Magistrate, Khurda

Amrita Mohanty Vs Nivedita Mohanty

Laxmi Roul Vs Harihar Pahil

Jyotsnarani Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Mitali Panda Vs State of Odisha