S.A. NO. 65 OF 2000 MISC. CASE NO. 28 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.A. No. 65 of 2000, Disposed of on 23.06.2011) 22. 29.03.2016 This application has been filed by Smt. Aparna Bewa who was th e appellant no. 1 in the above noted second appeal. Her son Jayakrushna was the other appellan t with her. They had filed the second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Balasore in S.J.A. No. 06/08 of 1992-89. The appeal having been filed on 15.02.2000, the same had been admitted on 05.0 5.2000. The present petitioner and her son being the appellants had appointed Dr. M.R. Panda, Advocate, Orissa High Court and his associates in the said appeal. An application having been filed for withdrawal of the said second appeal, it stood numbered as Misc. Case No. 11 of 2011 . Upon hearing, this Court by order dated 23.06.2011 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. In vie w of that the judgment and decree passed by learned Addl. District Judge in S.J.A. No. 06/08 o f 1992-89 attained finality. When such state has been continuing, on 03.03.2016, the present a pplication for recall of the said order has been filed by the appellant no. 1 after lapse of a bout 4 years and 8 months. The ground taken therein is that the appellant no. 2 was suffering from variou s fatal ailments and for that he had developed unsoundness of mind. In that mental condition, he instructed his lawyer to withdraw the second appeal and that has been so carried out. But i t was never with the consent of the appellant no. 1 and she was not made aware of it. It is sa id that when she came to Cuttack this year (2016), and met her lawyer then she could know that the appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn although she was all along under impression that t he appeal was sub-judice. Learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 reiterating the petition averments sub mits that it is a fit case for recall of the order of dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. Except the bald averment made in the petition which are also not in detail, fi rstly as regards the ailment of appellant no. 2; secondly, as regards his instruction of the l earned counsel, if any, in a state of unsoundness of mind; and thirdly, as to how and for what reason in the year 2016 the appellant no. 1 came to Cuttack when the litigation was being loo ked after by appellant no. 2 all through, no further clinching material in support of those ar e being shown when the fact remains that the final decree proceeding in the original court was in progress. In view of above, after such long lapse of 4 years and 8 months, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition for recall of the order dated 30.06.2011, when valuabl e right has already been accrued in favour of the respondents as the judgment and decree as im pugned in the appeal have attained their finality; when also further developments in that ligh t are altogether not ruled out. The Misc. Case is accordingly dismissed. .. D. Dash, J. Narayan // 2 //