CMP/1520/2026 of RAJENDRA KUMAR BAJAJ Vs BISWANATH PRADHAN on 10 September 2026

ORDER

10.09.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In filing the present CMP, the Petitioners being the legal heirs of the original Plaintiff in C.S. No.365 of 2011, who passed away during pendency of the said Civil Suit, have challenged the impugned order dated 08.04.2026 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (First Court), Cuttack in CMA No.08 of 2019 arising out of CMA No.64 of 2013 vide Annexure-4.

3. Heard.

4. Challenging the impugned order dated 08.04.2026 passed in CMA No.08 of 2019, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the suit for specific performance of contract vide C.S. No.365 of 2011 was dismissed for default on 09.01.2013 when all the parties were attempting to resolve the dispute amicably outside the Court. He further contends that soon after dismissal of the appeal a restoration petition vide CMA No.64 of 2013 was filed. But, during pendency of the said restoration petition, the father of the Petitioners passed away. Since the Petitioners were unaware about pendency of the CMA No.64 of 2013 being fought by their deceased father, they could not pursue the said CMA in time, for which, the said CMA was dismissed for default on 05.12.2018.

5. According to the learned counsel for Petitioners, soon after getting information about the Civil Suit No.365 of 2011, the Petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff filed another CMA bearing No.8 of 2019 for restoration of the CMA No.64 of 2013 in order to protect their civil rights.

6. He contends that despite best efforts of the Petitioners and explanation of sufficient reasons in the petition for restoration vide CMA No.8 of 2019, the learned Court in seisin over the matter rejected the said petition.

7. He again contends that the father of the Petitioners had paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of the consideration amount of Rs.1,27,000/- in the year 1986 and executed an agreement on 15.10.1986 for purchasing the disputed property in question. Despite payment of the said amount and execution of the aforesaid agreement since the land was not registered in the name of the father of the Petitioners, the above noted Civil Suit was filed, which was dismissed for default during the process of amicable settlement of the dispute.

8. He, in the process, submits that the Petitioners being the legal heir of the original Plaintiff and having no fault, are going to lose their civil right. He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in the present CMP.

9. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court is of the view that the civil right of the Petitioners should have been protected as they were unaware of the fact of litigation being fought by their deceased father. This Court, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2026 passed in CMA No.08 of 2019 arising out of CMA No.64 of 2013, remits the matter back to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Jude (First Court), Cuttack for adjudicating the petition for restoration of the appeal bearing No.365 of 2011 vide

CMA No.64 of 2013 afresh on merit. The delay, if any, in preferring the CMA No.64 of 2013 shall be condoned liberally.

10. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order.

11. This CMP is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta