Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.702 of 2019 Rama Chandra Mohanty ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. – R.P.Dalai -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. -Mr. D.K.Sahoo, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 11.03.2026 I.A. No.750 of 2024 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the present I.A. 3. While explaining the delay in filing the substitution application learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the legal heirs of the deceased sole respondents did not know about the pendency of the present case. He further submitted that after coming to know about the pendency of the present proceeding before this Court, the legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent filed an application bearing I.A. No.749 of 2024 with a prayer for substitution of the legal heirs. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand objected to the condonation of the delay in filing the substitution application on the ground that the delay has not been properly explained. He further contended that there is a long delay in Page 2 of 4. approaching this Court for substitution. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the limitation application as well as the substitution petition be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the grounds taken in the condonation of delay application i.e. in I.A. No.750 of 2024, this Court is inclined to condoned the delay in filing of the substitution application subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund. 6. Accordingly, I.A. stands disposed of. I.A. No.749 of 2024 7. This is an application for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased-sole Appellant. Although the present application was filed late, however, such delay in filing has been condoned by virtue of the order passed in I.A. No.750 of 2024. 8. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended that during the pendency of the present F.A.O., the sole Appellant died on 06.09.2021. Since the right to sue survived in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased-sole Appellant, the legal heirs, who are Appellants in the present I.A., be permitted to be substituted in place of the deceased Appellant and to be allowed to prosecute the present appeal against the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer for substitution made by the learned counsel for the Appellant. However, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the grounds stated in the applications, this Court is inclined to allow this application. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for substitution is allowed. The legal Page 3 of 4. heirs of the sole appellant be substituted in place of the deceased sole appellant. Consolidated copy of the cause title be uploaded by day after tomorrow. I.A. No.748 of 2024 11. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the abovenoted FAO. 12. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended that along with the appeal memo, the Appellant had filed this application seeking condonation of delay. He further submitted that the original Appellant died during the pendency of the present appeal. He further contended that the appeal was filed by the original Appellant with a delay of 78 days as has been pointed out by the stamp reporter of this Court. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant- Petitioner contended that unless the delay in presenting the appeal is condoned, the legal heirs of the deceased-sole appellant are likely to suffer irreparable loss. 13. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay has not been explained properly. However, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsels for both sides, on a careful examination of the grounds taken in the condonation of delay application, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 78 days in presenting the appeal before this Court subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund. 14. Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed. FAO No.702 of 2019 15. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 16. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Page 4 of 4. Parties that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court passed on 19.03.2025 in FAO No.509 of 2014 and batch. 17. In view of such submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present FAO is disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in FAO No.509 of 2014 and batch. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi