Dismissed

Mathuri Das v. Purusottam Das

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026CMP/1945/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a Conventional Miscellaneous Petition filed to set aside a rejection of plaint amendment under CPC. Citing a 2018 Supreme Court decision, the court held that since ten years had elapsed since the suit was stayed, it was presumed disposed of or substantially proceeded, warranting dismissal of the CMP and vacation of the interim stay.

What did the court decide?

The CMP dismissed; interim order stays vacated; Misc. Case disposed of.

Mathuri Das Vs Purusottam Das — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMP No.1945 of 2016

¶3

[CNR No.- ODHC010557732016 ]

¶4

1. Mathuri Das

¶5

2. Satrughana Das

¶6

3. Ratnakar Das

¶7

4. Tukuni Das …. Petitioners

¶8

-versus-

¶9

1. Purusottam Das

2. Kangali Das

3. Basudev Das

4. Nanguli Das

…. Opp. Parties

¶14

Mr. Gourav Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate (for O.P. Nos. 1 to 4)

¶15

CORAM:

¶16

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER

Order No.

10.09.2026

05.

(Through hybrid Mode)

¶21

On 08.09.2026, when the matter was taken up, no counsel

¶22

appeared on behalf of the Parties for which, the matter had been adjourned to 09.09.2026. The matter could not be taken up on 09.09.2026 and was adjourned to today.

¶23

Today when the matter is called, no counsel appears on

¶24

behalf of the Petitioner but Mr. Gourav Das, learned counsel is present on behalf of Mr. Niranjan Lenka, learned counsel for the

¶25

Page 1 of 3

¶26

Opposite Parties No.1 to 4. But he submits that he is unaware about the present status of the Civil Suit.

¶27

To grant an opportunity to the learned counsel for the Petitioners, in the interest of justice, the matter is passed over to be taken up after recess.

¶28

Later

¶29

No counsel appears on behalf of the Petitioners.

¶30

This CMP has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶31

“set aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 20/ 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara rejecting to ‘impaled’ some persons as Defendants No.5 and 6 vide Annexure-4.”

¶32

Although the prayer is indecipherable, on perusal of Annexure-4, it is apparent that the petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC read with Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC to amend the plaint has been rejected and this order has been challenged.

¶33

While issuing notice on 21.02.2017, this Court had been

¶34

stayed further proceeding in Civil Suit No. 20 of 2008.

¶35

Page 2 of 3

¶36

Thereafter the matter was listed on 08.09.2026.

¶37

The CMP is of the year 2016. More than ten years have elapsed since the interim order was passed and in view of the decision of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

¶38

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2018) 16 SCC 299 , it can safely be presumed that the suit has been disposed of in the meanwhile or proceeded substantially for which I am not inclined to keep the CMP pending.

¶39

The CMP is dismissed.

¶40

Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶41

Misc. Case No. 2050 of 2016 stands disposed of.

¶42

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶43

Madhusmita/puspa

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 10-Sep-2026 19:47:38

¶46

Page 3 of 3

Mathuri Das v. Purusottam Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathuri Das v. Purusottam Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases