Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No.843 of 2023 Akhila Chandra Mishra ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Ashok Kumar Mohapatra -Versus- Kulamani Mishra & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. - M/S Bhaskar Ch.Panda CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 27.07.2026 Order No. 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties. 3. The present CMPAL application has been filed under Order-41, Rule-19 of the CPC with a prayer for restoration of RSA No.180 of 2018 which was dismissed due to non-prosecution vide Order dated 17.11.2023. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed this CMAPL Application on 14.12.2023 within the period of limitation as has been prescribed in law. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Appellant-Petitioner died during the pendency of present CMAPL Application; as such his legal heirs had already been substituted in its place in the meantime. He further contended that there is no delay in approaching this Court for restoration of the Second Page 2 of 3. Appeal. He further contended that due to communication gap of conducting counsel, the conducting counsel could not appear before the Court on 17.11.2023 and for this default the matter has been dismissed due to non-prosecution. 5. In view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the present CMAPL be allowed and the Second Appeal be restored to file. Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that there is negligence of latches on the part of the Appellant-Petitioner. He further contended that the matter was listed under the heading “for hearing” on 17.11.2023, none appeared on behalf of the Appellant, accordingly, the Second Appeal has been dismissed due to non-prosecution. He further contended that in the meantime several years have passed. Therefore, the restoration of the Second Appeal at this stage may cause prejudice to the Opposite Parties- Respondents. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-Respondents contended that the present CMAPL Application is devoid of merit, accordingly the same should be dismissed. Having heard learned counsels appearing for both the sides, on a careful examination of the background facts and further taking note of the surrounding facts and circumstances has led to dismissal of the Second Appeal due to non-prosecution on 17.11.2023, this Court is of the view that if such order is allowed to remain on record and the same may definitely cause prejudice to the Appellant’s rights. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order dated 17.11.2023. Accordingly, while allowing the present CMAPL Application through Second Appeal, Page 3 of 3. the RSA No.180 of 2018 is restored to file subject to Petitioner paying a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) to the counsel appearing for the Respondents-Opposite Parties. 7. Accordingly, the Second Appeal be restored to file and the same be listed before the appropriate Assigned Bench. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Nitu Prava