This is an application under Order 43 Rule 1 CrPC (CMP). The High Court dismissed the application pursuant to Article 227 of the Constitution due to a delay of nearly ten years and the absence of petitioners' counsel, presuming the underlying suit was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 806 of 2016
… Petitioners
2.Nalini Kumari Panda @ Nalini Panda
None
-versus-
1.Bishnu Prasad Panda 2.Siba Prasad Panda 3.Satya Prakash Panda 4.Rojalini Panda 5.Monalisha Panda 6.Laxmipriya Sahoo
Opp. Parties
Ms. Sonali Panigrahi, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Kalpataru Panigrahi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No.
24.07.2026
04.
(Through hybrid Mode)
Page 1 of 2
and no counsel appears on behalf of the petitioners, it can safely be presumed that the said civil suit has, in the meantime, been disposed of.
Utkalika
(Savitri Ratho) Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2026 18:06:34
Page 2 of 2
Dukhishyam Panda
Nalini Kumari Panda
Bishnu Prasad Panda
Siba Prasad Panda
Satya Prakash Panda
Rojalini Panda
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
