IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.671 of 2016 1. Subash Khuntia @ Pradhan 2. Surendra @ Simadri Pradhan 3. Hara Pradhan 4. Suresh Pradhan 5. Mitu Pradhan …. Petitioners None -versus- 1. Sri G. Raja Rao 2. Narasingh Pradhan 3. Bairagi Pradhan 4. Basu Pradhan 5. Raju Pradhan …. …. Opposite Party Proforma Opposite Parties Mr. Suryakant Dhir, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 28.07.2026 07. (Through Hybrid Mode) 1. The CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 28.03.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi in C.S. No. 24 of 2005 vide Annexure-3 rejecting the application filed by the Defendant No.5(a) and 5(b) praying for time and to adjourn the cross-examination of P.W.1. 2. Perusal of the petition in the Annexure reveals that the impugned order dated 28.03.2016 is at Annexure-2 and not Annexure-3. 3. On 27.04.2016 while issuing notice, this Court had stayed further proceeding in C.S. No. 24 of 2005 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paralakhemundi. Thereafter the matter was listed on 29.06.2016 before the Registrar (Judicial) when none had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. One week time had been granted for taking fresh steps for issuance of notice on Opposite Party No.3 in the present correct address by Speed Post. 4. None appears for the Petitioner when the matter is called. But a memo is filed by Mr. Suryakanta Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioners stating as follows: “On account of no instruction, it is not possible for advocate for petitioner to conduct the case. Hence, necessary order may kindly be passed by this Hon’ble Court.” The said memo is taken on record. 5. On 23.07.2026 when the matter was listed, Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 had prayed for an adjournment in order to obtain instruction if the suit is still pending. 6. Mr. Suryakanta Dhir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submits that Civil Suit No.24 of 2005 has been disposed of by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi on 26.04.2026. 7. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this CMP pending which is therefore dismissed. 8. All the pending interim application(s) stand disposed of. (Savitri Ratho) Judge RKS