IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No.328 of 2025 Trilochan Samal and another …. Petitioners Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Khurda and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Saswat Das, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 09.07.2026 (Hybrid Mode) I.A. No.548 of 2025 and CMAPL No.328 of 2025 04. 1. The Registry has pointed out typographical error that has crept into the order dated 13.05.2026, the CMAPL number has been wrongly typed as ‘128’ instead of ‘328’. The numerical ‘1’ shall be corrected as ‘3’ in the said order dated 13.05.2026 in accordance with rules. The I.A. No.548 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of reported delay of 636 days in filing the CMAPL. 2. The writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution by order dated 04.01.2024. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned conducting counsel unfortunately passed away during pendency of the writ petition. Therefore, there was a definite gap in attending the matter. 4. The petitioners after becoming aware of the dismissal have filed I.A. No.548 of 2025. The available order sheets indicate that the notices were issued by the Division Bench then having determination of the matter, on 21.03.2005. Thereafter, the matter was not listed. 5. Perusal of the records of the writ petition which has also been tagged to the CMAPL indicates that the counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties was filed on 19.05.2006. Referring to the counter affidavit in CMAPL, learned counsel for the opposite parties- university submits that: apart from the delay in filing the CMAPL, further developments have to be noted as to whether revival of the writ petition would lead to any result for the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite parties, in considered view of this Court as the matter pertains to regularization of service in the establishment of the opposite party-university and the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner unfortunately passed away during pendency of the petition, the writ petition needs to be revived to be considerd on merits. 7. The delay in filing the CMAPL is condoned. The I.A. is favoured and disposed of. 8. The CMAPL is favoured and disposed of. The writ petition shall be restored to file. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge jyotsna