Orissa High Court
CMP/1629/2016 of DEEPAK KUMAR ROUT Vs AMIT KUMAR NAYAK on 20 August 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1629 of 2016 [CNR No.- ODHC010278902016] 1. Deepak Kumar Rout 2. Pramila Giri 3. Nayana Jena 4. Sanjay Kumar Nayak 5. Surendra Nath Rout 6. Asit Kumar Nayak 7. Sambhunath Nayak 8. Bishnumohan Nayak 9. Panchanan Nayak 10. Gobinda Samal 11. Ganesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.1629 of 2016
[CNR No.- ODHC010278902016]
1. Deepak Kumar Rout
2. Pramila Giri
3. Nayana Jena
4. Sanjay Kumar Nayak
5. Surendra Nath Rout
6. Asit Kumar Nayak
7. Sambhunath Nayak
8. Bishnumohan Nayak
9. Panchanan Nayak
10. Gobinda Samal
11. Ganesh Prashad Nayak
….
Petitioners
None
-versus-
1. Amit Kumar Nayak
2. State of Odisha, represented by
Collector, Bhadrak
3. Tahasildar, Bhadrak
4. Headmaster, Khirasahi, Nodal UP
School, Khirasahi, Dist.-Bhadrak
….
Opp. Parties
None
(For Opposite Parties No.1 and 4)
Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For Opposite Parties No.2 and 3)
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.
07. 20.08.2026
(Through hybrid Mode)
1. This matter is taken up from the weekly list.
2. This CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak in Civil Suit No.195/2015-I (Annexure-9) rejecting the petition filed by a 3rd party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.
3. While issuing notice on 18.01.2017, further proceeding in the suit had been stayed by this Court.
4. None appears on behalf of the Petitioners or Opposite Parties No.1 and 4 when the matter is called.
5. In view of the fact that more than ten years have elapsed since the impugned order was passed, it can be safely be presumed that in the meanwhile the suit has been disposed of or has progressed considerably for which no counsel are appearing in the matter. No useful purpose would therefore, be served by keeping the CMP pending.
6. The CMP is accordingly dismissed.
7. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated of. Misc. Case No.1712 of 2016 stands disposed of. (Savitri Ratho) Judge
Madhusmita Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Aug-2026 19:37:41 Signature Not Verified