IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 895 of 2016 CNR No. ODHC010292332016 Madanmohan Padhi …. Petitioner Mr. B.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- 1. Kunjabihari Padhi 2. Bankabihari Padhi 3. Gouranga Chandra Padhi 4. Prasanta Patra 5. Raghunath Sahu 6. Anita Kumari Panigrahy …. Opp. Parties Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Advocate (For O.P. No.1) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 09. 07.09.2026 (Through hybrid Mode) 1. The CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi in C.S. No. 48 of 2012 rejecting the application filed by the Defendant No.1 (present Petitioner) for acceptance of the original family arrangement deed dated 23.07.2022 and to recall D.W.1 for re-examination to prove the said document. 2. While issuing notice on 08.06.2016, further proceedings in C.S. No.48 of 2012 had been stayed by this Court. 3. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 submits that apart from the Petitioner, Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 4 have already died during pendency of the CMP and although they have been substituted in the suit, but no steps have been taken for their substitution in the CMP for which the CMP is liable to be dismissed. 4. Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the letter sent to the Petitioner has returned unserved with the endorsement that ‘the Petitioner is dead’. He submits that the legal heirs of the Petitioner have not approached them for taking steps for substitution of the Petitioner or the deceased Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 4. 5. Perused the report dated 22.08.2026 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paralakhemundi which was sent in response to the order dated 19.08.2026 of this Court. It is stated in the report that the Plaintiffs’ evidence has been closed after examination of P.W.1 on 14.03.2016 and P.W. 2 on 29.03.2016 before the order of stay was passed. Thereafter, evidence of Defendants No.1 (a), 3, 5 and 6 examined D.W.1 on 07.05.2016 and D.W.2 on 07.07.2026. Now the case is posted to 24.08.2026 for adducing evidence on behalf of Defendants No.2 and 4. 6. In the said report, nothing has been stated about the death of the Petitioner who was Defendant No.1 in the suit or Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 4 who were the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 2 and 4 in the suit respectively. Page 3 of 3 puspa 7. As steps for substitution of the Petitioner has not been taken, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the CMP pending. 8. Hence, the CMP is accordingly dismissed. 9. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 10. Misc. Case No. 897 of 2016 stands disposed of. 11. But Registry is directed to call for a further report from the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paralakhemundi regarding developments which have taken place in the suit after the impugned order dated 13.05.2016 was passed in the suit (including substitution of parties if any). (Savitri Ratho) Judge Designation: Personal Assistant