Orissa High Court
CMP/1619/2016 of GOKUL CHANDRA MOHANTY Vs NANDA@NABA KISHORE DAS on 20 August 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1619 of 2016 [CNR No.- ODHC010290182016] 1. Gokul Chandra Mohanty 2. Adwaita Prasad Mohanty …. Petitioners None -versus- Nanda @ Naba Kishore Das and 20 others …. Opp. Parties None CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.1619 of 2016
[CNR No.- ODHC010290182016]
1. Gokul Chandra Mohanty
2. Adwaita Prasad Mohanty
….
Petitioners
None
-versus-
Nanda @ Naba Kishore Das and 20
others
…. Opp. Parties
None
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.
06. 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 23.08.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kendrapara in T.S. No.425 of 1998 (Annxure-5) rejecting the petitions filed by the plaintiff to recall the order of dismissal dated 22.04.2010 against defendant No.4 and to amend the name of defendant No.4(c).
3. While issuing notice on 01.11.2016, further proceedings in C.S. No. 425 of 1998 had been stayed by this Court.
4. None appears for the Petitioner No.1 or Opposite Parties No. 6, 12, and 16 when the matter is called.
5. Note of the Registry indicates that unserved notice has returned from Opposite Parties No. 2 to 5 and 7 to 11 and 13 with postal remark “Customer shifted”, unserved notice has return from Opposite Party No.15 with postal remark “such addressee not found in the village”, notice has returned unserved from Opposite Parties No. 17 and 18 on account of their refusal, unserved notice has returned from Opposite Party No.19 with the remark “addressee has expired” and notice from Opposite Party No.20 has returned with the postal endorsement “left (long day absent)”.
6. Since almost 12 years have elapsed since the impugned order was passed, and no counsel appears on behalf of the Petitioners, it can safely be presumed that either the suit has been disposed of or has progressed considerably, for which no useful purpose would be served by keeping this CMP pending any longer.
7. Hence, the CMP is dismissed.
8. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated and Misc. Case No. 1703 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