Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2015 DAILYLAW 852 (ORI)

JAGADISH PATRO v. K.JAGANNADHA SWAMY KUMANDAN

CMP/1586/2015 · 2026-07-24

Miss Savitri Ratho

body2015

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1586 of 2015 1. 1. Jagadish Patro 2. 2. Balakrushna Patro …. Petitioners Mr. Deepankar Panigrahi, Advocate, -versus- K. Jagannadha Swamy Kumandan …. Opposite Party None CORAM: THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 24.07.2026 11. (Through Hybrid Mode) 1. This CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 04.07.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Rayagada in FAO No. 02 of 2012 (Annexure-1) and the order dated 18.08.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rayagada in IA No. 38 of 2012 (Annexure- 4). 2. Mr. D. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed a Memo, where it is stated as follows; “That, there is no instruction from the side of the petitioner to proceed with the present case. As such the case may be allowed to be withdrawn as no instruction.” 3. Perusal of the order sheet in the CMP reveals that on 10.12.2015, the CMP has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, pursuant to order dated 16.03.2016 passed in CMAPL No.838 of 2015, the CMP had been restored. 4. Notice had been issued to the Opposite Party on 03.01.2017, but notice could not be served on the Opposite Party as it returned unserved with the report that Opposite Party had expired. However, steps for substitution were not taken till 06.11.2017, for which the CMP had been dismissed with the rider that if substitution application would be filed along with application for recall of the order within 2 weeks, the CMP would be reopened. 5. On 21.11.2017 in Misc. Case No. 1664 of 2017, order dated 06.11.2017 was recalled. In Misc. Case No. 1663 of 2015 notice was issued in the matter of substitution. 6. Office note indicates that notice had been issued to the legal heirs, but A.D. had not returned from them. It is thus, apparent that no interim order of stay had been passed by this Court. 7. In view of the Memo and as no interim order has been passed in this CMP, no useful purpose will be served by keeping it pending. 8. The CMP is dismissed. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Madhusmita