Orissa High Court
Dr. Suratha Chandra Mangaraj vs State Of Orissa & Others on 15 December, 2021
Author: D.Dash
Bench: D.Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.A. No.22 of 1996
Dr. Suratha Chandra Mangaraj .... Appellant
Mr.N.K. Sahu,Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa & Others .... Respondents
Mr.R.K.Mohanty,
Sr. Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
15.12.2021 Order No. I.A. Nos.109,110 & 111 of 2021
23. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).
2. These applications have been filed by the legal representatives of the sole Appellant, namely, Dr. Suratha Chandra Mangaraj, who has died on 11.10.2012.
3. Said Dr.Suratha Chandra Mangaraj had filed this Second Appeal on 29.01.1996 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in Title Appeal No.4/97 of 95/94. The Appeal has been admitted on 20.06.1997. The sole Appellant Dr. Suratha Chandra Mangaraj having died on 11.10.2012, the two applications vide I.A. Nos.109 and 110 of 2021 have been filed on 17.11.2021 by the legal representatives of said deceased Appellant for their substitution as the legal representatives of the Appellant by setting aside the abatement which has taken // 2 // place on account of death of the sole Appellant and for non- taking of step for substitution within ninety days of death, as this Appeal has automatically abated. The third application vide I.A. No.111 of 2021 is for condonation of delay for all these period till 17.11.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that these Petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Appellant, had no knowledge about the filing of this Appeal by said Appellant and thus they could not take the steps in time. He submits that when they came to know about the said fact that this Appeal had been field by the deceased Appellant, they having contacted the lawyer have taken steps. He, therefore, submits that the Court should take a lenient view in this matter of substitution of these Petitioners as the legal representatives of the sole Appellant in whose favour right to sue survives by setting aside the abatement and condoning the delay.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the contesting Respondent No.2 vehemently oppose the move. According to them, the Appeal having abated since the mid of January, 2013 and the present applications having been filed on 17.11.2021 after lapse of about eight and ten months, the explanation that it was because of the ignorance of the Petitioners about the pendency of this Appeal is not at all acceptable. They submit that by such long lapse of time, a valuable right having accrued since long, in the absence of any plausible explanation; the prayers as advanced should not be accepted.
6. Keeping in view the submissions made and on going through the averments taken in the Applications, this Court Page 2 of 3 // 3 // finds the explanation to be not at all plausible to condone such long period of delay of more than eight and half years.
Although, the settled position is that the Court should not have a pedantic approach in seeking the explanation for each day's delay, yet here viewing such delay stretching over eight and half years when a valuable right has already accrued in favour of the adversary and the possibility of involvement of others who are not parties to the litigation with the subject matter is not altogether ruled out; the explanation does not appear to be plausible and rather the same is found to be quite vague and made in a casual manner, which this Court finds extremely difficult to accept. In view of the above, as no sufficient cause is found to have prevented the legal representatives of the Appellant in approaching the Court after eight and half years, I am not inclined to accept the prayers as advanced in the petitions.
7. Accordingly, the applications given rise to the above I.As. stand rejected. The I.As. are hereby dismissed.
(D. Dash) Judge ORDER 15.12.2021 Order No. S.A. No.22 of 1996
24. 1. In view of the above orders passed in I.A. Nos.109,110 & 111 of 2021, the Appeal stands dismissed.
(D. Dash) Judge Himansu Page 3 of 3