p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT UTTACK CRLREV No. 245 of 2026 Manjula Majhi …. Petitioner Mr. S. Sarangi, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. K. Balaji Reddy …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate (Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 27.04.2026 I.A. No.375 of 2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 2. This I.A. has been filed for condonation of delay. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that taking into account the recitals in the I.A., sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay. 4. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the Informant who has entered appearance by filing vakalatnama. The same is taken on record. 5. Considering the rival submissions, in the backdrop of the pleadings that sufficient cause has p. 2 been shown for condonation of delay, the delay in filing of the CRLREV is condoned. 6. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge 02. CRLREV No.245 of 2026 1. Registry is requested to reflect the name of Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the Informant in the brief, cause title as well as Web Portal of this Court. 2. On the consent of the Parties, the matter is taken up for consideration on merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur, Ganjam in M.C. No.75 of 2025 whereby the prayer for release of the vehicle under Section 503 of BNS was rejected inter alia on the ground that in spite of being given “multiple opportunities”, the application was not moved, the present Revision has been filed. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the same was on account of miscommunication between the counsel and the Petitioner and that ought not to deprive the Petitioner from pursuing his remedy. p. 3 6. Learned counsel for the Informant opposes such prayer. 7. Considering the ground on which the order of dismissal has been passed, this Court is persuaded to hold that interest of justice would be subserved, if the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded. Accordingly, the order dated 05.08.2025 is hereby set aside. 8. Learned Court in seisin is requested to take up the matter for fresh consideration on its own merit on appearance of the parties. 9. To cut short the delay, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the learned Court in seisin on 05.05.2026 since learned counsel for the Informant, on instruction submits that the Informant can also appear on the said date. 10. It shall be open for the Informant to appear on the said date, if so advised. 11. It is needless to state that this Court has not expressed any views regarding the merits of the claim which has to be adjudged in an independent manner. 12. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of. U.C.C. as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Ayesha