p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No. 479 of 2025 Sankar Mandal … Appellant Mr. K.C. Nayak, Advocate -versus- Sanjaya Gahan & Another … Respondents Ms. S. Das, Advocate (R-2) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 06.02.2026 MACA No. 479 of 2025 and I.A.No. 850 of 2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 850 of 2025 U/S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the appellant-petitioner for condonation of delay of 586 days in preferring the appeal. 3. Heard, Mr. Kapila Charan Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Ms. Sudhamayee Das, learned counsel, who has appeared for R-2 by waiving notice. 4. Admittedly, there is a delay of 586 days, but the following grounds have been taken in support of the condonation of delay in paragraphs 2 & 3 of the petition which reads as under:- “2. That the conducting counsel has not communicated anything regarding passing of award on 20.04.2023, when the petitioner No.1 has physically verified the case record on 16.09.2023, it came to his p. 2 knowledge that very low amount has been awarded in this case. 3. That then they contacted to other Advocate at Cuttack on 18.09.2023 who gave opinion that, it is a fit case to prefer appeal before the Hon’ble High Court.” 5. A careful perusal of the grounds so taken, it appears that the grounds are formal in nature, but there is neither real consequence nor anything has been produced to substantiate the same. Further, the appellant has been awarded with compensation by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,77,100/- with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application. Although, the appellant-petitioner has taken the plea of negligence of his counsel for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, but it has not substantiated the same. 6. In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into consideration the grounds as advanced for condonation of delay, which is not at all appealing, this Court does not consider it proper to condone the delay. 7. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay in I.A. No. 850 of 2025 stands rejected. Since the delay in preferring the appeal has not been condoned, the MACA stands dismissed. (G. Satapathy) Judge S.Sasmal