Orissa High Court
CMP/967/2016 of GHANASHYAM PRADHAN Vs RAM PRATAP KHERIA on 28 July 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.967 of 2016 1. Ghanashyam Pradhan 2. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan 3. Sadasiva Pradhan …. Petitioners Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate -versus- Ram Pratap Kheria …. Opp. Party Mr. Sandipani Mishra, Advocate Mr. A . Kejriwal, Advocate for sole
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.967 of 2016
1. Ghanashyam Pradhan
2. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan
3. Sadasiva Pradhan
….
Petitioners
Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate
-versus-
Ram Pratap Kheria
…. Opp. Party
Mr. Sandipani Mishra, Advocate
Mr. A. Kejriwal, Advocate
for sole O.P.
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.
03. 28.07.2026
(Through hybrid Mode)
1. This CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in Execution Case No. 109 of 1999 issuing writ of attachment against the judgment-debtor.
2. On 15.07.2016, this Court had directed that the copy of the petition should be served on Mr. Sandipani Mishra and his associates.
3. Mr. A. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that although Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the sole Opposite Party on 04.07.2016 but till date copy of the petition has not been served on them.
4. Ms. P. Naidu, learned counsel submits that she has instructions to appear for the Petitioner and may be granted some time to obtain instructions.
5. Perusal of the order sheet reveals that although the case is pending since 2016, neither notice of admission has been issued nor any interim order has been passed staying further proceedings.
6. Hence, it is apparent that decree of the Court must have been executed in the meanwhile.
7. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the CMP pending, which is therefore dismissed.
8. Pending interim application(s) stand disposed of.
9. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to take steps for revival of the CMP/ recall of this order, in case any cause of action still survives. (Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Madhusmita Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Jul-2026 20:32:46 Signature Not Verified