Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.14 of 2025 Sk.Rafique Hazari & Ors. ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Dwarika Prasad Mohanty -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C. M/s. Pratap Keshari Deo, A. Jena CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 11.03.2026 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Interveners whose application before the learned trial court to be impleaded as party to the suit was allowed and as against which the Petitioners-plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. 3. By fling the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff in C.S. No.94 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Jajpur Road has approached this Court challenging legality and validity of order dated 03.10.2023 at Annexure-6, whereby the learned trial court has allowed the application of the interveners to be arrayed as parties to the suit. Page 2 of 4. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that initially the plaintiff filed the abovenoted suit for declaration for right title and interest and for permanent injunction against the defendants. He further contended that during the pendency of the suit, the present interveners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 at Annexure-3 to the CMP application. Such application was dismissed due to non- prosecution vide order dated 12.12.2022. Thereafter, the interveners filed another application with a prayer to restore the application filed and to be impleaded as party on 17.10.2022, at Annexure-3 to the CMP application. He further contended that the original plaintiff during his lifetime filed his objection at Annexure-5 to the CMP application. In the said objection petition, a specific objection has been taken by the plaintiff with regard to the right and locus standi of the interveners. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in course of his argument, further contended that the learned trial court, vide order dated 03.10.2023, while considering the application for restoration of the interveners application with a prayer to be impleaded as parties to the suit, passed an order dated 03.10.2023 thereby allowing the interveners to be added as defendant Nos.3 to 13 to the suit and they were permitted to file their WS. The plaintiff was granted liberty to publish the notice for public advertisement in local newspaper. Being aggrieved by such order dated 03.10.2023 at Annexure-6 to the CMP application, the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at this stage contended that although the impugned order was passed on 03.10.2023, however, the original plaintiff died on 07.09.2023. Therefore, order dated 03.10.2023 was passed without given providing an opportunity of hearing to the original plaintiff. To support of his contention, learned Page 3 of 4. counsel for the Petitioners referred to order dated 31.07.2024 passed in the very same suit at Annexure-7 which reveals that though original plaintiff died on 07.09.2023, an application was filed under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Rule 9 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act to be impleaded as parties. Such applications filed by the legal heirs of the deceased-original plaintiff were considered by the learned trial court and disposed of vide order dated 31.07.2024, thereby permitting substitution of the legal heirs in places of the deceased-original plaintiff. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts on record, it is clearly established that the sole plaintiff died on 07.09.2023 i.e. prior to the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 was passed by the learned trial court. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since order dated 03.10.2023 has been passed on an application of the interveners in a suit where the original plaintiff was dead by the time the impugned order was passed, the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 is a nullity in the eye of law. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners prayed for setting aside of order dated 03.10.2023 at Annexure-6. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Interveners on the other hand contended that the interveners-Opposite Parties have a substantial interest over the suit scheduled land. Accordingly, they filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC to be impleaded as a parties to the suit. Though such application was dismissed for default initially, however on an application being filed by the interveners-Opposite Parties, such application was restored and that after hearing the parties, the application to be impleaded as parties to the suit was allowed by virtue of order dated 03.10.2023. On such ground, learned counsel for the interveners-Opposite Parties contended that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing order dated 03.10.2023 at Annexure-6. Therefore, the Page 4 of 4. learned counsel for the Interveners-Opposite Parties submitted that the present CMP application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the factual background of the dispute between the parties, this Court observes that it is a matter of record that the sole plaintiff died on 07.09.2024 and accordingly his legal heirs were substituted and brought on record by virtue of order dated 31.07.2024, at Annexure- 7. Whereas, the impugned order at Annexure-6 was passed on 03.10.2023, admittedly after the death of the sole plaintiff. Thus, there exist no doubt that the impugned order was passed against a dead person without providing an opportunity of hearing. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that the order dated 03.10.2023 at Annexure-6 is a nullity in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to hear the application of the intervener- Petitioners afresh by providing opportunity of hearing to the both sides and such application be disposed of strictly in accordance with law and within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of today’s order. Learned counsels appearing for both sides are directed to appear before the learned trial court within ten days from today along with a copy of today’s order. 9. With the aforesaid observations, directions, the CMP application stands disposed of. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi