IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.33 of 2017 [ CNR No. ODHC010099082017 ] 1. Pravulal Bhagaban Jee (died) 2. Narayan Chandra Sahoo 3. Niranjan Sahoo 4. Sailendra Sahoo …. Petitioners None -versus- Radhsyam Mahawar …. Opposite Party None CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 10.09.2026 04. (Through Hybrid Mode) 1. As no counsel appears on behalf of the parties when the matter was called, the matter had been passed over to be taken up after recess. When the matter is taken up after recess, no counsel appears on behalf of the parties. 2. The CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Civil Revision No.17 of 2016 (Annexure-1) confirming the order dated 20.04.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in Title Suit No.284 of 1990 (Annexure- 2). Page 2 of 3 3. The learned District Judge, Cuttack has observed as follows:- “9. The learned trial Court as apparent from the impugned order has rejected the petition of the petitioners U/S.47 CPC mainly on the premise that the 1st Appellate Court by order dtd. 31.01.2014 invoking the provision of Or.22 R.4 CPC exempted substitution of L.R of the deceased defendant no.1 Prabhulal Bhagwan Jee and that the said order of the learned 1st Appellate Court viz.3rd Addl. District Judge, Cuttack has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in CMP 213 of 2014. 10. From the facts narrated above, no error or infirmity is noticed in the impugned order of the learned lower Court. After the substitution of LRs of deceased Defendant no.1 has been dispensed with by the 1st Appellate Court whose order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court, as already noted above, the questions relating to death of the defendant no.1 and the consequences are no more relevant in so far as the present proceeding is concerned. Therefore the decree of the 1st Appellate Court cannot termed as nullity. So, no reason is found to interfere with the impugned order of the learned lower Court. Page 3 of 3 Resultantly, the Revision being devoid of merit is dismissed on contest. Send back the LCR to the learned lower Court.” 4. While issuing notice on 17.01.2017 in the CMP as well as Misc. Case No.40 of 2017, no interim order had been passed. Almost ten years have elapsed since the judgment in Civil Revision No.17 of 2016 is passed. 5. Since no counsel is appearing on behalf of the parties, it can be safely be presumed that nothing remains to be decided in the CMP, which is accordingly dismissed. 6. Misc. Case No.40 of 2017 stands disposed of. (Savitri Ratho) Judge RKS