IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1631 of 2025 Jagadish Prasad Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. Digambar Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Order No. ORDER 15.04.2025 (Hybrid Mode) 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is noticed by this Court that the impugned order though is described as dated “3.12.2017” as mentioned in column no.1 of the order-sheet in the certified copy enclosed (at page-51 of the brief) the order has been passed on 13.12.2017. The learned AGA submits that the order was written/passed presumably on 13.12.2017 but his brief also shows the date to be 3.12.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner produces the certified photocopy of the order that shows that the order is dated 13.12.2017. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to substitute the order-sheet as annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-7 (page-51 of the brief). Prayer is allowed. The corrected copy shall also be provided to the learned AGA. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.12.2017 passed in Mutation Appeal No.31 of 2015 by the Additional Sub-Collector, Berhampur, Ganjam, O.P. No.2. He refers to the order dated 13.12.2017, the last few lines, where the following has been observed. “xxx xxx It is presumed that, the appellant has no interest to further contest the Appeal. So the appeal is dismissed due to default of the parties.” It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware that the learned counsel engaged by the petitioner did not appear. As the petitioner was not aware of the default made by his counsel and should not suffer as a consequence. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate upon advance copy served appears on behalf of the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were no other private parties in the mutation appeal or in the original mutation case before the Tahasildar, O.P. No.3. 5. The learned AGA in response refers to the order passed by the appellate authority to submit that the petitioner remained absent on as many as 13 dates starting with 06.04.2016 till 13.12.2017. However the learned AGA agrees to the submission that the matter be remanded to the appellate authority for consideration on merits. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate and considering the fair stand taken by the learned AGA and since the petitioner by seeking mutation of the Record of Rights is seeking to establish his right to property, this Court takes a lenient view with regard to non-appearance of the petitioner before the appellate authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted three weeks’ time to file such petition. 8. It is directed that the petitioner shall make an appropriate application before the appellate authority for restoring the matter since it was disposed of on default. Upon filing of such petition along with website copy of this order the appellate authority shall restore the application and consider the same on merit. The petitioner undertakes to file the petition within two weeks and thereafter to appear on each date either in person or through his counsel before the authority and also undertakes that the petitioner shall cooperate in the proceeding. 9. As the matter is pending since 2015 it is expected that the authority shall do well to expedite the matter without granting unnecessary adjournments. Failure on part of the petitioner to file application for restoration within three weeks shall result in the order dated 13.12.2017 to be followed with legal consequence(s). 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (M.S. Sahoo) Judge RJ