Orissa High Court
CMP/892/2026 of SAROJINI MAHARANA Vs PRAKASH CHANDRA MOHAPATRA on 10 September 2026
of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.892 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010365442026 Krushna Chandra Maharana (Since Dead through Legal heirs) Sarojini Maharana & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Sidheswar Rath, Adv. versus- Prakash Chandra Mohapatra …. Opposite Party(s) CORAM:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.892 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010365442026
Krushna Chandra
Maharana (Since Dead
through Legal heirs)
Sarojini Maharana &
Ors.
….
Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sidheswar Rath, Adv.
versus-
Prakash Chandra
Mohapatra
….
Opposite Party(s)
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order No.
01.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
10.09.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In filing the present CMP, the Petitioners being the legal heirs of the original appellant who has passed away during pendency of the appeal vide RFA No.18 of 2022 which arises out of the judgment/order passed in C.S. No.48 of 2011, have challenged the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Athagarh in CMA No.8 of 2025 vide Annexure-5.
3. Heard.
4. Challenging the impugned order dated 09.02.2026, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that during pendency of the above noted appeal vide RFA No.18 of 2022, the original Appellant i.e. the father of the present Petitioners had passed away on 15.08.2023. According to him, due to the distress condition in the family of the Petitioners after the untimely death of their father, the application for substitution could not be filed in time, for which, the appeal was abated vide order dated 13.08.2024.
5. He further contends that upon abatement of the appeal when the Respondent attempted to enforce the judgment/ order passed in the Civil Suit noted hereinabove, the Petitioners on being noticed, came to know regarding abatement of the appeal filed by their father. Soon after getting information regarding abatement of the appeal, the Petitioners filed an application for restoration of the appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 of the C.P.C along with a petition for substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 of the C.P.C and a petition under Order 22 Rule 9 of the C.P.C for abatement of the order dated 13.08.2024 so also a petition for condonation of delay in order to protect their civil right.
6. He, in the process, contends that despite best efforts of the Petitioners and explanation of sufficient reasons for delay in preferring the petition for restoration of the appeal and substitution in respect of the original appellant, the learned Court in seisin over the matter rejected the said petitions on the ground of delay only. There was a delay of 348 days in preferring the said petitions. He submits that the Petitioners were not aware of the litigation being fought by their deceased father, rather, they came to know about the same only after getting the notice in the Execution Proceeding. Accordingly, he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Banwari Lal (D) by LRs. & Anr. Vrs. Balbir Singh1 in order to strengthen the stand of the present Petitioners. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted herein below:- “7. But the facts remain that three fresh application Nos.11811/2009, 11812/2009 (under Order XXII, Rule 9, CPC) and 11813/2009 (under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC) were filed for condonation of delay and to set aside the abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives of appellant No.2-Swaraj. When the second appeal was restored to file, specific order ought to have been passed restoring the above three applications and setting aside the abatement and the legal representatives of the appellant no.2 ought to have been brought on record. Without passing specific order on those 1 AIR2015SC3573 Civil Appeal No.6567 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) no.22468 of 2013
three applications, High Court was not right in dismissing the second appeal as abated qua the second appellant.”
7. He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in the present CMP.
8. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners, looking to the factual scenario of the case and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra, this Court is of the view that the civil right of the Petitioners should have been protected as they were unaware of the fact of litigation being fought by their deceased father and they came to know regarding the order of abatement of the Appeal vide RFA No.18 of 2022 only on being noticed in the Execution Petition. This Court, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 passed in CMA No.8 of 2025 arising out of RFA No.18 of 2022, remits the matter back to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Athagarh for adjudicating the petition for restoration of the appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 of the C.P.C along with a petition for substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 of the C.P.C and a petition under Order 22 Rule 9 of the C.P.C for abatement of the order dated 13.08.2024 afresh on merit. The delay in preferring the said petitions shall be condoned liberally.
9. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order.
10. This CMP is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta