IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No.3 of 2018 CNR No. ODHC010010772018 Prafulla Ch. Mohapatra …. Petitioner Ms. Soma Patnaik, Advocate -versus- General Manager Personnel, Syndicate Bank & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. B. N. Udgata, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 20.08.2026 CMAPL No.3 of 2018 & I.A. No.60 of 2019 13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. This I.A has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 970 days in filing of the application for restoration. 4. It is contended that even though the Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dtd.08.04.2015, but because of un-avoidable circumstances, the application for restoration could not be filed within the period of limitation. p. 2 p. 2 4.1. Accordingly, it is contended that the delay in filing of the restoration application be condoned. 5. Mr. B.N. Udgata, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties-Bank on the other hand contended that even though the Writ petition was dismissed vide order dtd.08.04.2015 and the application for restoration was filed on 02.01.2018, but the interim application seeking condonation of delay was filed on 18.02.2019. 5.1. Accordingly, it is contended that the delay pointed out by the stamp reporter will be much more, as no I.A was filed along with the application for restoration and it was filed more than one year after filing of the application for restoration. 5.2. It is also contended that no justifiable explanation has been given in the Interim Application for condoning the delay of more than 970 days. 5.3. Making all the submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties-Bank contended that delay is not required to be condoned. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the Writ Petition was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dtd.08.04.2015. Even though the application for restoration was filed on 02.01.2018 on the face of delay in filing of the same, but no application to p. 3 p. 3 condone the delay was filed along with the application for restoration. Such an application was only filed in the shape of the present I.A on 18.02.2019. 6.1. It is also found that no justifiable ground has been taken in the I.A seeking condonation of delay of more than 970 days, save and except the stand that because of un-avoidable circumstances, the application for restoration could not be filed within the period of limitation. Since no justifiable ground has been taken in the I.A to condone the delay of more than 970 days and the application for condonation of delay was filed after more than one year of the filing of the application for restoration, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the application for restoration. 7. Accordingly, the I.A stands rejected. Consequentially, the CMAPL also stands dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat Judge