CMAPL/280/2023 of PRAFULLA CHANDRA MOHAPATRA Vs G.M (PERSONNEL), SYNDICATE BANK on 20 August 2026

ORDER

20.08.2026

CMAPL No.280 of 2023

& I.A. No.358 of 2025

06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. This I.A has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 2001 days in filing of the application for restoration.

4. It is contended that even though the Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dtd.17.12.2019. But because of COVID Pandemic, the application for restoration could not be filed and it was filed on 05.04.2023. Placing reliance on the order by the

// 2 //

Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, it is contended that since Hon’ble Apex Court in the said order has taken a view that delay because of the COVID Pandemic is required to be condoned, the delay in filing of the present application for restoration be also condoned in view of the nature of order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties- Bank on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the objection so filed.

5.1. It is contended that even though the Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dtd.17.12.2019, but the application for restoration was only filed on 05.04.2023. Since the application for restoration was filed on 05.04.2023, the delay in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 cannot be condoned, as the application for restoration was not filed immediately after expiry of the period of limitation, so fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said Writ Petition.

5.2. It is also contended that even though the application for restoration was filed on 05.04.2023 with delay of around 2001 days, but the present I.A was filed seeking condonation of delay only on 10.07.2025 i.e. also around two years after filing of application for restoration.

// 3 //

5.3. It is also contended that no justifiable ground has been taken for condoning the delay of 2001 days.

5.4. Making all the submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties-Bank fairly contended that the delay is not required to be condoned.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that the Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dtd.17.12.2019.

6.1. It is not disputed that by that time the writ petition was dismissed there was no COVID Pandemic, as COVID Pandemic affected the entire world only in March, 2020 and by that time period of limitation had already expired.

6.2. It is also the view of this Court that even if taking into account the nature of order passed by the Apex Court in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, the restoration application was not filed immediately after the expiry of the period of limitation so fixed by the Apex Court. Not only that, even though the application for restoration was filed on 05.04.2023, application to condone the delay in the shape of present I.A was filed on 10.07.2025.

6.3. In view of such laches on the part of the Petitioner and since no justifiable ground has been taken to condone the delay of more than 2001 days, this Court is

// 4 //

not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the application for restoration.

7. Accordingly, the I.A stands rejected. Consequentially, the CMAPL also stands dismissed.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat

Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2026 10:54:43 Signature Not Verified