Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.99 of 2014 CNR No. ODHC010248802014 Simanchal Bastia ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. – Mr..Kapila Ch. Nayak -versus- Rajendra Nath Behera and another ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. – Mr. Netaji Sabyasachi Ghose, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 28.08.2026 Order No. MACA No.99 of 2014 & I.A. No.431 of 2022 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. This interlocutory application has been filed by Appellant with a prayer for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 3. On perusal of the Stamp Report, it appears that the appeal has been presented after 8 years 1 day. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 5. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay, this Court found that the impugned award was passed on 31st October, 2005. As such, the appeal was to be filed on or before 30th January, Page 2 of 3. 2006. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, at the outset, contended that the conducting counsel did not inform the Appellant- Claimant regarding the status of their case. However, while the Appellant-Claimant came to know about the fact that his claim application has been disposed of by passing an award, he has approached this Court by filing the present appeal along with an application for condonation of delay of more than 8 years. He also brought to the notice of this Court that the Appellant applied for copy of the impugned judgment on 13.11.2013 which was received on 26.11.2013. Thereafter the appeal was prepared and finally the appeal was presented on 31.01.2014. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay on the ground of laches on the part of the counsel who had not informed the Appellant-Claimant about the status of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, on the other hand, seriously objected to the condonation of such delay. While objecting to the condonation of delay, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted before this Court that the Appellant was negligent in inquiring about his own case. Therefore, he cannot shift blame on his conducting counsel alone. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted that the delay of 8 years 1 day has not been properly explained and that the ground taken is not satisfactory. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the Page 3 of 3. grounds taken by the Appellant-Claimant in the interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay, further taking note of the fact that the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence, has passed the impugned award and taking note of the observation of the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment that in the claim application which was filed on 25.08.1993, no notice was served on the Respondent-Opposite Party No.1-owner of the vehicle due to laches on the part of the Claimant for not taking steps for issuance of such notice and that claim case was once dismissed against Respondent-Opposite Party No.1 on 24.08.1998, this Court is not inclined to condone such delay which is solely attributable to the laches on the part of the Claimant. 9. Accordingly, the I.A. filed by the Claimant for condonation of delay in presentation of the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Designation: SECRETARY