p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRP No.57 of 2025 CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 04.05.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The petitioners were defendants in C.S. No.7866 of 2014 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar. The suit was decreed and execution was lodged. At that stage, the defendants preferred 1st Appeal being RFA No.137 of 2025 before the learned District Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneswar. 3. Upon appearance, the plaintiffs filed a detailed objection. Copy of the limitation petition is enclosed as Annexure-2 to this Revision while copy of the objection is enclosed as Annexure-3. By order dated 28.11.2026, learned District Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay by condoning the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs 1000/- to the respondents. Said order is impugned. 4. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Samapika Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 5. Mr. Bose assails the impugned order by submitting that the learned District Judge condoned the delay without taking note of the detailed objection filed by the plaintiff/respondents. 6. Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that Pankajini Patra & Ors. .… Petitioner Represented by Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate -Versus- Atasi Kumar Swain & Others .… Opp. Parties Represented by Ms. Samapika Mishra, Advocate Order No. 10. p. 2 the delay was condoned by citing sufficient reasons and taking note of the objection made by the counsel for the respondents. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that a detailed objection having been filed, it was incumbent upon the learned District Judge to have at least taken note of the same and a reasoned order ought to have been passed indicating as to why the objection so raised was not acceptable. 8. It goes without saying that both parties are required to be given equal importance as far as their contentions are considered though it is up to the Court to accept one or the other by citing sufficient reasons. To such extent therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order warrants interference. This Court would however hasten to add that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application for condonation of delay or the objection filed by the respondents. 9. The writ application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned District Judge to hear the application for condonation of delay afresh and to pass a reasoned order after taking note of the objection filed by the respondents. 10. It is made clear that if any cost has been received as directed by the learned Court below, the same shall be refunded to the appellants as a condition precedent for hearing the condonation of delay. Since the execution case is pending and an interim order was passed by this Court permitting the judgment debtors/defendants to seek its adjournment, it shall be open to them to seek similar direction from the learned District Judge by filing appropriate application. 11. To cut short the delay, both parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneswar along with certified p. 3 copy of this order on 18th May 2026. The learned District Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneswar shall make an endeavour to dispose of the same as early as possible. 12. Urgent certified copy be provided on proper application. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Pravakar