Orissa High Court
CMP/86/2017 of JUDHISTIR RANA Vs STATE OF ORISSA on 28 August 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 86 of 2017 CNR NO.-ODHC010116442017 Judhistir Rana …. Petitioner None -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 08. 28.08.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 86 of 2017
CNR NO.-ODHC010116442017
Judhistir Rana
….
Petitioner
None
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Order No.
08. 28.08.2026
(Through hybrid Mode)
1. On 20.08.2017, the matter had been adjourned to 28.08.2026 to enable Mr. Ankann Panda, learned counsel who was appearing on virtual mode from Kalahandi on behalf of Mr. P. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner to go through the brief.
2. Today, when the matter is called, none appears on behalf of the Petitioner.
3. Registry has pointed out requisites for issue of notice on Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4A to 4F has not been filed.
4. Since, none appears on behalf of the Petitioner, the matter is passed over.
Later
5. When the matter is called after recess no counsel appears on behalf of the Petitioner.
6. This CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 01.11.2016 passed in CMA No.4 of 2014 by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhawanipatna (Annexure-3) rejecting CMA No. 4 of 2014, holding that, it can be safely concluded that the Appellants-Petitioners have failed to show their reasonable diligence in prosecuting their case and their non-appearance did not appear to be unintentional and bonafide. Rather, they kept the appeal hanging for about 14 years and have not shown any cause of their non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing on the date of its dismissal. Extending leniency to the Appellants would be misplaced sympathy.
7. As no counsel appears on behalf of the Petitioner and in view of the reasons indicated in the impugned order dated 01.11.2016, I am not inclined to adjourn the matter.
8. Hence, this CMP is dismissed.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Subhalaxmi/ Madhusmita
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 28-Aug-2026 20:30:49 Signature Not Verified