IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17161 of 2018 Premananda Lenka and Others …. Petitioners Mr. Srinibash Satapathy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Satya Brata Mohanty, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 19.03.2026 03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek the following relief: “Therefore it is humble prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to admit the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and to issue notice to the opposite Parties to show cause as to why the case of the petitioner shall not be allowed. And after hearing both the parties the order dtd 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Deputy Director Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in appeal case no 91/2002 of village Ansallo, be quashed/set aside & In. appeal case no 91/2002 of village Ansallo, be quashed/set aside & the petition dtd 30.05.2017 filed under order 1 rule 8(A) and 10 of CPC read with under section 96 of CPC to add the petitioners as appellant be allowed. And or pass any other order which deem fit and proper for the interest and justice.” 3. The impugned order challenged before this Court dated 31.05.2017 in appeal case no.91 of 2002 wherein the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Director Consolidation, Bhubaneswar has dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner observing as follows: “This case has been continues since 06.01.2003 and it was dismissed on default for absence of appellant on 05.07.2011 by the then Deputy Director, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar, Subsequently, considering the petition of the appellant, the case was restored on 23.04.2013 and since then the case is posted to various dates giving opportunity to the appellant for filing of delay condonation petition. The learned Advocate for the appellant has taken several pleas for delay in filing the delay condonation petition and has sought time on each date. Though, in the meantime, more than 4 years have been elapsed since the restoration of the case, still the learned Advocate has failed to submit the same and is narrating different stories towards the lapses. In the last date of hearing of the case on 10.05.2017, the appellant was given last chance for filing the delay condonation petition by the next date fixed to 31.05.2017. But he has failed to submit the same with the plea that, the Sarpanch is not cooperating with him in filing the delay condonation petition. The Sarpanch Bhogasalada Gram Panchayat has filed the appeal petition in this case. The learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that, the Sarpanch is not cooperating in further hearing of the proceeding. The delay condonation petition is an important ingredient for consideration of admission of the case, as the appeal petition is filed after a long period of the final order of the case in the lower court. Adequate opportunities have been given to the appellant to file the delay condonation petition for admission of the case and its further hearing, but the appellant has failed to comply the same. As such the case is not admitted and dismissed.” 4. No plausible explanation has been furnished in the present application explaining the reasons for the failure of the Petitioners to file the petition for condoning the delay before the Appellate Authority despite adequate opportunities having been granted. The Appellate Authority, in its order, has elaborately dealt with the matter and, in the absence of any material justifying the delay in filing the appeal, has rightly declined to admit the same. This Court finds no reason to take a view different from the one arrived at by the Appellate Authority. In the absence of any material to the contrary and the findings being in consonance with law, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan Designation: Senior Stenographer