Dismissed¶34

Tahera Bibi v. Sebati Bhoi

Orissa HC16 Mar 2026WA/404/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.A. No.404 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 16.03.2026 (Harish Tandon, CJ.; M.S. Raman, J.) — Smt. Tahera Bibi v. Sebati Bhoi and others. Keywords: condonation of delay; Section 31 Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964; second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31; Section 25(1)(v) disqualification; Election Misc. Case No.16 of 2022; election appeal before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patnagarh; discretionary power; speaking order; non-interference with concurrent findings in letters patent appeal; plea of limitation not taken; Maina Tandia v. Election Officercum-BDO, 2008 (I) OLR 364 distinguished; writ appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Once an order condoning the delay is passed, the higher forum should be slow and circumspect in interfering with such order. ¶31

Tahera Bibi Vs Sebati Bhoi — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the Election Misc. Case was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation under Section 31 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 and whether the delay so condoned was improper and not in accordance with law. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

Condonation of delay is a discretionary power conferred upon the court/authority; once such discretion is exercised on a sound legal principle constituting a sufficient cause, the appellate court should not ordinarily interfere with such order.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Once an order condoning the delay is passed, the higher forum should be slow and circumspect in interfering with such order.

¶31

Key takeaways

The appellate forum should stay away from interfering with an order passed in the exercise of discretion unless such discretion appears to have been exercised irrationally, unreasonably and beyond the settled legal parameters.ratio¶31
The discretion exercised by the original forum in condoning the delay was uniformly affirmed by the first appellate forum and the writ Court; the letters patent appellate court should not interfere with such concurrent finding of facts in absence of convincing materials, and there is no infirmity and/or illegality in the impugned judgment.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Harish Tandon, CJ. and Murahari Sri Raman, J.), High Court of Orissa — Writ Appeal against single Bench judgment in W.P.(C) No.6730 of 2024 dismissing the appellant's challenge to the condonation of delay in filing Election Misc. Case No.16 of 2022 under Section 31 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (which assailed disqualification of respondent No.1 under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act). Held: (i) condonation of delay under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 is a discretionary power; once exercised on a sound legal principle constituting sufficient cause, the appellate court should not ordinarily interfere with such order; (ii) once an order condoning delay is passed, the higher forum should be slow and circumspect in interfering with it, and should stay away from interference unless the discretion was exercised irrationally, unreasonably or beyond settled legal parameters; (iii) the appellant never assailed the condonation order while contesting the Election Misc. Case on merit and took no limitation plea in the written statement, yet the forum of first instance framed a limitation issue and found sufficient cause, and the condonation application was disposed of by a speaking order on the materials on record; (iv) Maina Tandia v. Election Officercum-BDO, 2008 (I) OLR 364 distinguished on facts. Concurrent findings of the statutory forum, the first appellate court (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patnagarh) and the writ Court affirmed; appeal dismissed with no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No.404 of 2026

¶3

Smt. Tahera Bibi

¶4

…. Appellant

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Sebati Bhoi and others

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

Advocates appeared in this case:

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. Gokulananda Sahu, Advocate

¶10

For Opp. Parties : Mr. Sanjay Rath, Addl. Government Advocate (For State-opposite parties)

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

¶16

Date of Hearing and Judgment : 16^th March, 2026

¶17

¶18

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

¶19

The instant appeal arises from a judgment dated 13^th February, 2026 passed by the single Bench in W.P.(C) No.6730 of 2024 by which, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶20

The appellant approached the writ Court challenging the

¶21

legality and the correctness of the judgment rendered in Election

¶22

WA No.404 of 2026 Page 1 of 6

¶23

Misc. Case No.16 of 2022 solely on the ground that the same was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation provided under Section 31 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 and the delay so condoned is improper and not in accordance with law. The said Election Misc. Case was filed assailing an order disqualifying the respondent No.1 herein under Section 25 (1) (v) of the said Act on the ground of perversity. The said Election Misc. Case was accompanying an application for condonation of delay, which is permissible under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the said Act. The forum constituted for entertaining and/or deciding such Election Misc. Case under the said Act proceeded to consider the application for condonation of delay and in fact, allowed the same, but the said order was never assailed by the appellant while contesting the said Election Misc. Case on merit. After the final order is passed in the said Election Misc. Case, the election appeal was preferred before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patnagarh, but there does not appear any ground to have been taken pertaining to the condonation of delay. The said appeal was decided on merit and after the final disposal thereof, the same was challenged in the writ petition.

¶24

WA No.404 of 2026 Page 2 of 6

¶25

The tenet of the impugned judgment would indicate that the entire argument was revolving around the order passed by the forum at the first instance in condoning the delay in presentation of an application under Section 31 of the said Act. The writ Court proceeded to dismiss the said writ petition on the ground that it was open to the appellant to challenge the order condoning the delay after the same was passed and having not done so, at a later point of time, is denuded from raising such issue. It is further held that since the plea of limitation was never taken nor any challenge was made immediately after securing the presence, it is not open to the appellant to take such plea.

¶26

Our attention is drawn to the judgment rendered by the first appellate forum wherefrom it appears that the appellant did not make any pleading regarding the point of limitation in the written statement filed before the trial court. Despite the same, the forum of the first instance framed a separate issue relating to limitation and dealt with the same by returning its finding thereupon with the positivity that the circumstances which prevented the presentation of the said application within the stipulated period of time justifies the condonation of delay.

¶27

WA No.404 of 2026 Page 3 of 6

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a division Bench decision of this Court in Maina Tandia v. Election Officercum-BDO, 2008 (I) OLR 364 i.e. the condonation of delay is made ex-parte without affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side, then in that event the said order needs interference. In the said case, the order of the appellate authority was challenged in the writ petition and the same was disposed of relegating the parties to exhaust the statutory remedy provided in the said statute. The High Court directed the party therein to file a proceeding within a stipulated time, but there was a delay in securing the same. An application for condonation of delay was filed which was disposed of on a specious ground not pleaded in the said application for condonation of delay. In such perspective, it was held that an opportunity of hearing has to be provided to the other side more particularly, when the order is non-speaking order. It was further observed that while deciding an issue of limitation framed by the forum of first instance, it proceeded on the basis of accepting the ground of illness when there was no pleading made in the said application. The facts discerned from the said reported judgment is quite different and distinct from the facts emerged from the record. In the said case, the parties were litigating before this Court and in

¶29

WA No.404 of 2026 Page 4 of 6

¶30

fact, liberty was granted to approach the statutory forum while disposing of the writ petition and, therefore, the parties were aware of the litigation to be initiated in the statutory forum. Furthermore, the condonation was done on a ground which was neither pleaded in the application nor any document was produced in support thereof and in such perspective, it was held that without affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side to refute the contention, the disposal of the condonation application is improper.

¶31

In the instant case, the specific issue relating to a limitation was framed though there was no pleading or a ground taken by the appellant in the written statement. It is held both by the appellate forums as well as this Court that the condonation application was considered on the basis of the materials available in the record and disposed of by speaking order. Once the order condoning the delay is passed, the higher forum should be slow and circumspect in interfering with such order. Second proviso to Section 31 of the Act bestowed power upon the forum to condone the delay by exercising the discretion so vested upon it. The appellate forum should stay away from interfering with the order passed on discretion unless such discretion appears to have been exercised irrationally, unreasonably and beyond the settled legal parameters. The WA No.404 of 2026 Page 5 of 6

¶32

condonation of delay is a discretionary power conferred upon the court/authority and once such discretion is exercised on a sound legal principle constituting a sufficient cause, the appellate court should not ordinarily interfere with such order.

¶33

In the instant case, the original forum exercised such discretion in condoning the delay, which has been uniformly affirmed by the first appellate forum as well as the writ Court and, therefore, we do not find that in the letters patent appeal, the appellate court should interfere with such concurrent finding of facts in absence of any convincing materials produced by the appellant. We, thus, do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the impugned judgment.

¶34