WP(C)/22612/2026 of HIMANGINI SINGH Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 28 July 2026

ORDER

28.07.2026

01.

1. The order dated 11th March, 2025 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha (Board) in rejecting an application for restoration of the Stamp Revision Case No.02 of 2021, which was dismissed for default on 11th November, 2022. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.216 of 2024, and was taken up on the day and by the impugned order, the Board rejected the same.

2. The impugned order reads thus:

“Learned Advocate for the petitioner is present today. Learned Standing Counsel for the State is present. The misc. case has been filed to restore the Stamp Revision Case no. 01 of 2021 which was dismissed for default on 11.11.2022.

Learned Standing Counsel vehemently challenges the restoration of the Stamp Revision Case no. 01 of 2021 on two grounds. Firstly, the cause of action for the original revision case and the W.P.(C) No.

15406 of 2013 is similar and Hon'ble High Court of Orissa have issued a stay order in the matter. Secondly, the petitioners had filed the primary revision case without exhausting the Appeal forum. Learned Advocate for the petitioner was asked to clarify his stand on the facts stated by the Government Advocate but he had nothing to say.

In the light of the above facts, the primary Stamp Revision Case no. 01 of 2021 cannot be allowed to be restored. Resultingly, the misc. Case no. 215/2024 arising out of Stamp RC No.01/2021 is dismissed.

Pronounced the order in the open Court today, the 11th day of March, 2025.”

3. It is trite law that once a main proceeding is dismissed for default, the application for restoration has to be decided on the explanation offered therein, which prevented the petitioner to appear before the authority on the day when the main proceeding was dismissed for default. It is not open to the authority to enter into the merit that too by acting on the submission of the Standing Counsel raising an issue, which touches upon the merit of the main proceeding. The authority must confine its consideration to the explanation offered in the said application and, in the event, it is found that the petitioner was prevented by a sufficient cause in not appearing in the said fateful day, should have restored the same and thereafter proceed to decide the main matter. Such rule of procedure is ubiquitously present in every adjudicatory system as it is based upon the principles of fairness, transparency and the uniformity in taking a decision. It appears that the authority without adverting to the explanation offered by the petitioner, which stands in the way of his non-appearance on the day when the main matter was fixed, dismissed the same for default and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

4. The order impugned is set aside. The Miscellaneous Case No.216 of 2024 is restored to its original file and number. The Board is directed to reconsider the said application afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove and endeavor shall be shown to dispose of the same within two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures this Court that he would not seek any unnecessary adjournments, and will appear as and when the date is fixed and shall assist the Board in taking an informed decision in accordance with law.

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

M. Panda Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Aug-2026 14:52:20 Signature Not Verified