IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1871 of 2016 [CNR No.- ODHC010399302016 ] 1. Sk. Jamaludin 2. Sk. Jamiruddin 3. Sk. Saiduddin 4. Sk. Fakaruddin …. Petitioners None -versus- 1. Bhagabat Mohapatra 2. Manjulata Mohapatra 3. Jayanta Kumar Mohapatra 4. Deepak Kumar Mohapatra …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate (for O.P. No.1) CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 09. 10.09.2026 (Through hybrid Mode) 1. This CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhamnagar in C.S. No. 298 of 2012, rejecting the application filed by the Petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. 2. While issuing notice on 03.01.2017, this Court had stayed further proceedings in the suit. 3. Thereafter, on 20.05.2022, interim order had been extended for a period of three months from that date. There has been no extension thereafter. Page 2 of 4 4. On 06.08.2026 when the matter was listed, Registry had pointed out that notice had returned from Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 with a report that notice had been refused. Mr. D.R. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Swagatika Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Nayak 2, submitted that they do not have any instructions regarding present status of the suit and prayed for some time to obtain instructions, so the matter had been adjourned to 14.08.2026. On the same day, the report had been called for from the learned trial Court regarding status of the suit. 5. On 14.08.2026, Mr. D.R. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Petitioner No.1 had expired for which, he may be granted time to take steps for substitution. 6. As in the report dated 10.08.2026, it had been stated that on 10.02.2022 the stay order had been vacated in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2018) 16 SCC 299 and the case was posted for hearing on 12.08.2026, the matter was adjourned to 25.08.2026 and Registry was directed to call for a further report from the learned Civil Judge regarding developments in the suit after 10.02.2022 and also to indicate when stay order had been vacated. 7. On 28.08.2026 when the matter was listed, Mr. D.R. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioners filed a memo stating that Petitioner No.4 had been duly intimated regarding filing of substitution petition for further proceeding in the CMP and the letter sent by Speed Post had been received by the said Petitioner on 19.08.2026. But no instructions have been received from the Petitioner No.1. 8. As the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhamnagar had not bothered to comply with the order dated 14.08.2026 and inform the Court about the developments which had taken place in the suit after 10.02.2022, when stay order had been vacated on 28.08.2026, Registry had been directed to call for scanned copy of the order sheet in Civil Suit No. 298 of 2012 containing orders from 10.02.2022 till 25.08.2026 and the matter was adjourned to today. 9. Today when the matter is called, no counsel appears on behalf of the Petitioners. 10. Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel is present on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. 11. The order sheet in C.S. No. 298 of 2012 containing the orders passed on 10.02.2022 till 25.08.2026 has been received. The perusal of the order sheet reveals that stay order had been vacated on 10.02.2022 and on 11.07.2022, the matter had been posted to 31.10.2022 for hearing of the suit. On 31.10.2022, 21.12.2022, 27.02.2023, 08.05.2023, 03.08.2023, 11.10.2023, 19.12.2023, 28.02.2024, 16.05.2024, 03.08.2024, 24.10.2024, 26.12.2024, 28.02.2025, 17.04.2025, 25.06.2025, 25.08.2025, 17.04.2025, 23.10.2025, 16.12.2025, 04.02.2026, 21.04.2026, 12.05.2026, 03.07.2026, 21.07.2026 (24 dates), although the parties are absent and no steps were taken, the learned trial Court had adjourned the case. 12. Thereafter, on 06.08.2026, the counsel for the plaintiff had filed a petition praying for time on and the same was allowed till 12.08.2026. On that date learned counsel for the defendant was not present. 13. On 12.08.2026, hazira of witnesses were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs as the defendants were not present in Court in spite of repeated calls, they were set ex-parte and witness Bhagabat Mohapatra was examined and the matter was adjourned to 25.08.2026. On the said date evidence from the side of the plaintiff was closed and the case was posted to 05.09.2026 for argument. 14. In view of the developments in the suit after the impugned order was passed, the failure to take steps for substitution of Petitioner No.1, the nature of the impugned order and non-appearance of counsel for the Petitioner, I am not inclined to adjourn this CMP. 15. The CMP is accordingly dismissed. 16. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 17. Misc. Case No. 1978 of 2016 stands disposed of. 18. Urgent certified copy be granted on proper application. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Madhusmita