Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 448 of 2019 State of Odisha & Another ..... Appellants Mr. P.K. Panda, Adv. -versus- Sanjukta Sahu & Another ..... Respondents Mr. S.K. Mishra, Adv. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 26.03.2025 Order No. 8 I.A. NO.445 of 2019 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Perused the tracking report. 3. Since notice has been duly served on Respondent No.2, notice against the said respondent is treated as sufficient. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. The I.A. stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA ATAPATHY) Judge Order No. 5 FAO No. 448 of 2019 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Page 2 of 2. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Parties that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court so passed on 19.03.2025 in FAO No.509 of 2014 and batch. 3. In view of such submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present FAO is disposed of in the light of judgment so passed in FAO No.509 of 2014 and batch. (BIRAJA PRASANNA ATAPATHY) Judge sangita