Ranjan Kumar Sahoo vs The State Of Odisha

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging an order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Puri, whereby a delay of more than 25 years in filing an appeal under Section 96 CPC (registered as R.F.A. No.60 of 2019) was condoned in favour of Opposite Party No.2, Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee. The appeal before the District Court arose from an ex parte judgment and decree dated 21.06.1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Puri in Title Suit No.191 of 1992.

Opposite Party No.2 sought condonation of delay claiming that the Administrator came to know of the judgment only on 10.09.2019, alleging improper service of summons and non-compliance with Section 80 CPC notice requirements. The petitioner controverted these claims, pointing out that the opposite party had previously filed a petition under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC in 1996 (Misc. Case No.103 of 1996) which was dismissed in 2000 for failure to take steps, thereby demonstrating prior knowledge of the judgment.

The High Court was called upon to determine whether the learned District Judge's exercise of discretion in condoning an extraordinary delay of over 25 years was legally sustainable, particularly in light of the opposite party's demonstrated awareness of the proceedings and the earlier abortive attempt to set aside the ex parte decree.

Catchwords: civil revision · condonation of delay · Section 115 CPC · Section 96 CPC · Section 5 Limitation Act · ex parte decree · Order IX Rule 13 CPC · Section 80 CPC notice · service of summons · Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee · sufficient cause · delay of 25 years