Sohan Ram Vs Upendra Nath Mohanta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A. NO. 1957 OF 2025

In the matter of an appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court from the order dated 26.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No.27807 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶4

Sohan Ram …. Appellant

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Upendra Nath M	ohanta & Another …. Respondents Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant	: M/s. Arijeet Mishra, S.K. Jena, S. Biswal, R. Mahanto, K.P. Mukhi & I. Mishra, Advocates
For Respondents	: M/s. Kshirod Kumar Rout, S.K. Rout, T.S. Swaraj, S.Sthitaprajna, S.Sahoo, A.S. Mishra (Caveator)

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

¶9

J U D G M E N T

¶10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of hearing & Judgment :: 29.01.2026

¶11

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J .

¶12

This case has successive stages; originally, it was filed

¶13

before learned Senior Civil Judge, Karanjia vide Election Misc. No.11 of 2022; this having been favoured, the election of returned

¶14

candidate, i.e., appellant herein was set at naught vide order dated

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

09.04.2024. Then appeal was carried to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Karanjia in Election Misc. Appeal No.2 of 2024, which came to be dismissed on 30.09.2024. Thereafter, he preferred W.P.(C) No.27807 of 2024, which met the same fate at the hands of a learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.11.2025. Now, in intra-Court appeal, matter is at our hand.

¶17

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who suffered cancellation of his election, vehemently urges one single point for our consideration. An Election Petition filed belatedly has to be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and therefore, an application filed subsequently should not have been entertained by the Election Court. He further argues that this important aspect having not been adverted to in a right perspective, the impugned orders are liable to be set at naught. Learned counsel representing the Respondents makes submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed.

¶18

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, who has affirmed orders of the Courts below.

¶21

3.1. Section 44-B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 prescribes a period of fifteen days as limitation for laying a challenge to the elections to panchayats. The period is reckoned from a day after the election results are announced. In the instant case, it is admitted at the Bar, obviously after the period of limitation. An application is filed of course long after the filing of the challenge seeking condonation of delay. Counsel for the respondents rightly points out that in paragraph-5 of the Election Misc. Petition, delay is mentioned.

¶22

3.2. The provisions of section 44-B of the Act also provide for condonation of delay, when election petition is filed belatedly. Relevant part of the section reads as under:

¶23

“44-B. Presentation of petitions (1) The petition shall be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 44-L before the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] having jurisdiction over the place at which the office of the Samiti is situated] together with a deposit of [two hundred rupees] as security for costs within fifteen days after the day on which the result of the election was announced:

¶24

Provided that if the office of the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] is closed on the last day of the period of limitation as aforesaid the petition may be presented on the next day on which such office is open:

¶25

Provided further that if the petitioner satisfies the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] that sufficient cause existed for the failure to

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

present the petition within the period aforesaid the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] may in his discretion condone such failure:…”

¶28

Although Section 44-B mentions a period of fifteen days for laying a challenge to the election, there is nothing as to the period within which an application for condonation of delay should be filed. The contention that where application for condonation of delay is filed subsequent to filing of the petition to challenge the election, even that delay should be explained, thus does not merit acceptance. We repeat that limitation is prescribed only for filing the main petition and not any interlocutory application. If the Legislature intended otherwise, it would have made a provision to that effect. It hardly needs to be stated that the law of election is what the statute says vide Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal , AIR 1982 SC 983 and Court cannot import the principles de hors the statute.

¶29

3.3. A Division Bench of Karanataka High Court in State of

¶30

Karnataka v. Nagappa, AIR 1986 Kar. 199, has held that a proceeding filed belatedly cannot be turned down on the ground of delay per se without giving an opportunity to the litigant to file an application for condoning delay, if the statute provides for condonation. The following observations are worth adverting to:

¶31

“17. A Court, before which a time barred appeal comes for hearing with no application made along with it under section 5 of the

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay, as to necessarily dismiss it not because of non-compliance with sub-rule(1) of Rule 3A of Order 41 of the Code, but because of the operation of section 3 of that Act. Therefore, what the Court can do when a time barred appeal is presented before it without being accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, is to regard to such presentation as defective for non-compliance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 3A and taking into account the procedural nature of defect in such presentation, to afford to the appellant concerned a reasonable opportunity of remedying the defect, instead of proceeding to dismiss the appeal itself outright or in limine…”

¶34

The above observation broadly reflect what course of action

¶35

a Court can take consistent with the rules of reason and justice, when a time barred appeal is not accompanied by application for condonation of delay. They apply to election disputes of the kind. We hasten to add that, the Court may call for explanation when the application for condonation of delay is filed long after the filing of challenge to election. Ideally speaking, such application should be filed when the petition is instituted challenging the election.

¶36

No other point having been urged, this Intra-Court appeal lacking in merits, is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs

¶37

having been made easy.

¶38

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶39

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶40

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

¶41

The 29^th day of January, 2026/Prasant