Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.272 of 2019 Mitarani Moharana and others ..... Appellants Represented by Adv. - M/s. Subhasish Mohanty -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Respondent Mr. S. Behera, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 19.03.2026 Order No. 06. I.A. No.122 of 2026 & I.A. No.449 of 2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. This is an application filed by the Appellants with a prayer to recall order dated 21.07.2023 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court, thereby dismissing the appeal due to non-prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants at the outset contended that earlier the Appellants filed an I.A. with a prayer to recall the restoration of the F.A.O. No.272 of 2019 to record under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC along with an application bearing I.A. No.184 of 2025 with a prayer for condonation of delay. Both I.As. were withdrawn vide order dated 15.05.2025 with liberty to file a fresh one along with Vakalatnama. Thereafter, the present I.A. has been filed with a prayer for restoration of the FAO application along with another application, i.e. I.A. No.449 of 2025 for condonation of delay. Page 2 of 3. 4. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants as well as learned counsel for the State. 5. On perusal of the record, it appears that there exists a delay of two and half years in filing the application to recall order dated 21.07.2023 and to restore the FAO to file. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellants at the outset, referring to the grounds taken in I.A. No.449 of 2025, submitted before this Court that the delay in filing this I.A. was neither deliberate nor intentional and that the Appellants have sufficient cause for the delay to be condoned. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay has not been properly explained. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the grounds taken in the delay application, further taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellants, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the present I.A. No.122 of 2026 subject to the Appellants paying a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Orissa High Court Bar Association within fifteen days and furnishing money receipt thereof in proof of deposit. 9. Accordingly, I.A. No.449 of 2025 stands disposed of. I.A. No.183 of 2025 10. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants as well as learned counsel for the Respondent-State. Page 3 of 3. 11. The present I.A. has been filed with a prayer to recall order dated 21.07.2023, whereby the FAO preferred by the Appellants has been disposed of due to non-prosecution. Perused the I.A. application and the grounds taken therein. 12. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the Appellants on the ground that the Appellants were negligent and failed to appear before this Court on 21.07.2023. He further contended that the explanation given is not sufficient. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the application for restoration/recalling order dated 21.07.2023 be dismissed. 13. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the grounds taken in the I.A. application, this Court is inclined to recall order dated 21.07.2023. Accordingly, the same is hereby recalled. The I.A. is restored. 14. Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed. FAO No.272 of 2019 15. The FAO be placed for admission before the assigned bench. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout