MANOJ KUMAR SAHOO Vs. RAM DEVI SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This an application filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration (CMAPL) to restore the Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.

(2.) S.R. has pointed out delay of 1356 days. It is stated under paragraph-3 of the application that the petitioners had no knowledge about the Second Appeal being dismissed for non-prosecution and came to know only on 9/8/2025, when they received notice of the execution proceeding.

(3.) Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal was admitted and substantial questions of law were framed. However, since the conducting lawyer had missed the list, the Second Appeal was dismissed for default. This fact was not communicated to the petitioners and as such they remained in the dark and came to know only after receiving notice in the execution proceeding. It is further submitted that unless the delay is condoned, the petitioners would be put to severe loss. In support of the submissions, two judgments of the Supreme Court has been cited by Mr. Mohanty, namely, N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy [Civil Appeal Nos. 4575-76 of 1998 (@SLP (C) No.8712-13 of 1998)] decided on 3/9/1996 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Subrata Borah Chowlek and Others, [Civil Appeal Nos. 9726-9727 of 2010 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 14520-14521 of 2010) decided on 12/11/2010.