|
1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent No.1 in the present appeal is stated to have expired.
3. Learned counsel who had appeared for respondent No.1 submitted that the deceased respondent is survived by his widow and two sons and that he has the particulars of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the appellants were not aware of the death of respondent No.1, the application for impleadment of the legal representatives could not be filed.
5. She further submitted that a bunch of other appeals involving identical issue on merits was decided by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2024 in C.A. No.12373 of 2024 - The State of Odisha & ors. v. Dr. Madhulita Sundara & another and the connected matters which were remitted back to the High Court for consideration on merits. In those cases as well, there was delay in filing the intra-court appeals. In the present case, the delay was 103 days, which was not condoned by the High Court.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal should not be kept pending only for the purpose of impleadment of the legal representatives, as the details of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 are available.
7. Accordingly, they are impleaded as legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1. The details of the said legal representatives as furnished by the learned counsel are as follows:
S.No.
| Name
| Age
| Marital Status
| Relationship with Deceased
| 1.
| Digbijaya Kumar Mohapatra
| 37
| Married
| Son
| 2.
| Biswabijaya Mohapatra
| 29
| Unmarried
| Son
| 3.
| Sikta Mohapatra
| 65
| Widow
| Wife
|
7.1 The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the memo of parties and cause title be amended accordingly.
8. As already noted, this Court, vide order dated 12.11.2024 passed in Dr. Madhulita Sundara's case (supra) while dealing with a bunch of similar appeals, had set aside the order passed by the High Court, whereby the intra-court appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. This Court had remitted the matter(s) back to the High Court for consideration afresh on merits. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
9. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court for consideration afresh on merits.
10. Let the present matter be taken up for hearing alongwith W.A. No. 1556 of 2023 and other batch matters which have already been remanded back to the High Court for consideration on merits by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2024 passed in Dr. Madhulita Sundara's case (supra).
11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
|
