IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 1602 of 2015 Mahendri Pradhan … Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Kumar Khuntia, Advocate -versus- Sanat Kumar Biswal and 8 Others … Opp. Parties None (For O.Ps. 1, 2 & 6) CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 31.07.2026 06. (Through hybrid Mode) 1. This CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Civil Suit No. 25 of 2014 rejecting the application of the plaintiff/Petitioner filed under Order 18, Rule 17 of the CPC. 2. While issuing notice on 08.12.2015, further proceedings in C.S. No. 25 of 2014 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sambalpur had been stayed by this Court. 3. Pursuant to order dated 27.07.2026, report dated 30.07.2026 of the learned Civil Judge-cum-J.M.F.C., Sambalpur has been received, where it is stated as follows: “The suit was admitted on dated 10.07.2014. Till date 3 nos. of witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. On dated 11.12.2015 advocate for the plaintiff filed a memo along with certified copy of order dated 08.12.2015 in Misc. Case No 1651/2015 arising out of CMP No 1602/2015 of the Hon'ble High Court Orissa, wherein it was directed to stay the further proceeding of this case till the next date. Accordingly the suit was stayed. On dated 16.12.2022 the stay order was vacated as per the guideline laid in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. reported in 2020 (II) OLR SC 948. After that Notices had been issued to the parties. Plaintiff and defendants no. 1,2,4,7 and 8 appeared before this Court. Then notices were issued to the other defendants i.e defendants no. 3,5 and 6. The notices issued to defendants no. 3 and 5 were returned with the endorsement that they were deceased. However, no petition for substitution was filed with the prescribed period of limitation in respect of them. Hence, the suit abated against the defendants no. 3 and 5 on dtd. 20.07.2026. Till date SR of defendant no. 6 has not yet been received. Now the case is posted for awaiting SR of defendant no.6.” 4. None appears for the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 6 when the matter is called. 5. Office notes indicates that undelivered notice has been received from Opposite Party No.4 with the noting that the “addressee absence since long”. puspa 6. Mr. P.K. Khuntia, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has no instructions to proceed with this CMP and files a memo to that effect. The memo is taken on record. 7. Since steps for substitution of Defendant No.3-Padma Biswal and Defendant No. 5- Sushila Biswal who are Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.8 in this CMP, have not been taken in the suit and the suit has abated against them and in view of the memo filed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the CMP pending, which is accordingly disposed of. 8. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated and the Misc. Case No. 1651 of 2015 stands disposed of. 9. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to take steps for recall of this order within a period of four weeks. (Savitri Ratho) Judge