Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.221 of 2026 Ranka @ Bhagirathi Rayapitam @ Raypitam & others ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Saroj Kumar Dash -versus- Dibakar Bhujabala ..... Opposite Party Represented by Adv. – CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 13.02.2026 Order No. 01 . 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. Peruse the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India the Revision petitioner in Civil Revision No.2 of 2019 arising out of Civil Suit No.15 of 2015 has approached this Court by challenging the order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khordha in the above noted Civil Revision. Page 2 of 3. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that by virtue of impugned order dated 24.10.2025, the revision Petition filed by the Petitioners has been dismissed due to the non- prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners while explaining the non- appearance submitted before this Court that the Petitioner No.3, who has been entrusted with the management of the case and he was coordinating with the conducting counsel, passed away during the pendency of the revision petition before the learned Revisional Court. As a result, the conducting counsel could not take any steps on the dates the matter was listed before the learned Revisional Court. On such ground learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same is needed to be set aside. 5. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners on a careful examination of the background facts further on scrutiny of the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 of the Revisional Court, it is found that the Revision Petition has been dismissed due to non-prosecution. 6. Although the Petitioners have taken a ground that the Petitioner No.3 was dead during the pendency of the Revision Petition, however, this Court is of view that there are latches on the part of the other Petitioners, for which they could not appear before the learned Revisional Court on the date the matter was posted. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, this Court, in the larger interest of Justice is inclined to set aside the order dated 24.10.2025 subject to the Petitioner paying a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the Opposite Party. Page 3 of 3. 7. Accordingly, the CMP application is allowed. However, liberty is granted to the Opposite Party to seek for variation or modification of this order, in the event it is found that the Petitioner has suppressed any material facts before this Court. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Suchitra