RABINDRA NAYAK vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMAPL No.123 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010526422026

(An application Under Chapter-VIII, Rule 30 of OHC

Rules, 1948).
Rabindra Nayak and
another
… Petitioners
-versus-

State of Orissa and others … Opposite Parties


For Petitioners : Mrs. P. Nayak, Advocate
appearing on behalf of Mr.
K.K. Sahoo, Advocate

For Opposite
Parties

: Mr. J.K. Khandayat Ray, ASC

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:04.11.2026 (ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.
CMAPL No.123 of 2026 & IA No. 209 of 2026
1. This judgment shall dispose of not only the
application in CMAPL No.123 of 2026, but also IA No. 209 of
2026 filed by the Petitioners u/s 5 of the Limitation Act,1963
seeking for condonation of an inordinate delay of 1600 days
in filing the CMAPL.
2 . The Petitioners have in fact filed the above CMAPL
to restore the OJC No. 12994 of 2000 which was dismissed
for default on 03.03.2022 with the following order: -

CMAPL No.123 of 2026 Page 1 of 4

“1. None appears for the Petitioners when the
matter is called.
2. This matter is pending since 2000. It appears
that the Petitioners are not interested to pursue
the matter. The Writ Petition thus stands
dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim order
dated 22.02.2001 passed in Misc. Case No.
12994/2000 stands vacated.”

3. Heard, Mrs. Prabahsi Nayak, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of Mr. Kishore Kumar Sahoo, learned
Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. J.K. Khandayat Ray,
learned ASC in the matter and perused the record.
4. The Petitioners, however, have approached this
Court for restoration of the case in OJC No. 12994 of 2000 in
the present CMAPL after delay of 1600 days, but the petition
to condone the delay does not contain any specific grounds
for condonation of delay in filing such application. The
petition by which the Petitioners seek for condonation of
delay is IA No. 209 of 2026, wherein it is inter-alia stated
the following the reasons for condonation of delay: -
“(2) That due to misfortune of the petitioners the
writ petition was dismissed for default and interim
order was vacated on 03.03.2022 by the Hon'ble
High Court. The petitioners had no knowledge
about this order. Inadvertently the counsel for the
petitioners had missed the list for which he could
not appear. When the Opp. Party 5 and 6 started
construction over disputed plot the petitioners

CMAPL No.123 of 2026 Page 2 of 4

came to know that their case has been dismissed
for non-prosecution.
(3) That immediately the petitioner applied for
certified copy of the Order dt.03.03.2022 and
obtained on 25.06.2026 and immediately CMAPL
has been filed on 13.07.206 for restoration. There
has been 1600 days delay in filing CMAPL.”

5. On a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid
averments, this Court does not find any specific explanation
for condonation of delay, much less no precise date has been
indicated in such application as to the time taken by the
Petitioners for preparing this application and the grounds for
which the Petitioners was prevented by sufficient cause in
not approaching the Court in time. Merely because it is
averred somewhere in the petition that there was no laches
or negligence on the part of the Petitioners, the delay of
such long duration cannot be condoned. It is no longer res-
integra that an applicant can establish “sufficient cause” for
not filing appropriate application like in the present CMAPL
within the prescribed statutory time limit, however, the
expression of “sufficient cause” cannot be stretched to cover
the cases of absolute apathy and utter negligence. Law of
limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an
end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy.
CMAPL No.123 of 2026 Page 3 of 4

Undoubtedly, courts are empowered to exercise discretion to
condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown by the party,
but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may
not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for
various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay,
negligence and want of due diligence. At the same time,
merits of the case are not required to be considered in
condoning the delay.
6. In the aforesaid facts and situation and on
consideration of such long delay and there being no specific
ground taken by the petitioners for condonation of such a
long delay, this Court does not consider it proper to condone
the delay. Hence, the IA No. 209 of 2026 filed by the
Petitioners for condonation of delay of 1600 days is, hereby,
dismissed. Consequently, the CMAPL stands dismissed being
barred by law of limitation at the admission stage.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Digitally Signed
th
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Dated the 04 day of November, 2026/Priyajit
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 05-Nov-2026 18:25:02
Signature Not Verified

CMAPL No.123 of 2026 Page 4 of 4