IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.972 of 2016 [CNR No. ODHC010264792016 ] 1. Gangadhar Mishra 2. Anusuya Upadhyaya 3. Shantilata Panda 4. Arati Panda 5. Ahalya Mohapatra 6. Binata Panda 7. Saroj Kumar Mishra …. Petitioners Mr. N. Behera, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, Advocate -versus- 1. Kabita Manjari Panda 2. Hemanta Kumari Panda 3. Janardan Panda 4. Narayan Panda 5. Rita Bahini Pati 6. Kumari Simran Panda 7. Sanjukta Mishra 8. Kumari Kalyani Mishra 9. Babaji Sethi 10. Sankarsan Sethi 11. Janardan Sethi …. Opposite Parties CORAM: THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 12.08.2026 10. (Through Hybrid Mode) 1. This CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 07.11.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Soro in C.S. No. 449 of 2001 (C.S. No. 306 of 2010), rejecting the petition filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. 2. Office note indicates that undelivered notice on Opposite Party No.2 has been returned with the noting that addressee not known, hence return to sender and has returned from Opposite Party No.6 with the endorsement that addressee left, hence return to sender. 3. Notice has returned from Opposite Parties No.9, 10 and 11 with the noting that they refused to receive notice. 4. It was submitted by Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners on 30.07.2026 that Opposite Party No.10 has expired in the meanwhile, for which he would take steps for substitution within two weeks. 5. It was also directed on 30.07.2026 that fresh postal requisites with correct address of Opposite Parties No.2 and 6 would be filed by 11.08.2026. 6. Mr. N. Behera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that IA No.1447 of 2026, IA. No.1448 of 2006 and IA No.1449 of 2026 have been filed for substitution, setting aside abatement and condonation of delay in connection with death of Opposite Party No.10. 7. On 30.07.2026, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners had submitted that pursuant to interim order dated 28.08.2017, the suit had not proceeded, but as almost nine years had elapsed since the interim order had been passed, the Registry had been directed to call for a report from the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Soro regarding present status of Civil Suit No.449 of 2001 (CS No.306 of 2010). 8. Perusal of the status report dated 11.08.2026, received from the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-JMFC, Soro reveals that the Civil Suit has been disposed of on 13.12.2021 by an ex-parte decree. 9. In view of the disposal of the Civil Suit, nothing remains to be decided in this CMP, which is accordingly dismissed. 10. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Page 4 of 4 11. All pending interim applications stand disposed of. 12. Perused the explanation of Ms. Banashree Sandil, Dealing Assistant (Writ Branch-VII) where she has stated that as it had already been mentioned in the earlier office note dated 10.11.2016 that notice from Opposite Parties No.9, 10 and 11 had returned unserved and this had received the attention of the Court on 28.08.2017, the said fact was not repeated in the subsequent noting. She has also stated that this was not done with any intention to suppress or overlook the earlier position. 13. There is a noting dated 11.08.2026 drawing attention of the Court to order dated 28.08.2017 regarding sufficiency of notice on Opposite Parties No.9 to 11. This noting should have been made earlier, i.e. on 28.07.2026. (Savitri Ratho) Judge RKS