JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, A.C.J. 1. In this application filed by parents I of one Kishore Kumar Das (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased Kishore') legality of the order dated 27-8.1997 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court. Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992 filed by the opposite party the widow of deceased Kishore Kumar Das is under challenge. Direction given by the learned Judge. Family Court was to the effect that the Petitioners were to contest Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992 which arose out of Civil Proceeding No. 184 of 1991. This case has its pivot on the decision of this Court in Sabita Behera etc..v. Prafulla Kumar Das and Ors. etc.: 1997(1) O. L Rule 116. 2. Sabita Behera alias Das, opposite party herein was married to deceased Kishore on 30-1-1990 according to Hindu rites and custoMs. An application seeking divorce was filed by deceased Kishore, u/s 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1956 (in short, the 'Act'). Said petition was registered as Civil Proceeding, No. 184 of 1991 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cut tack. Prayer was accepted 'on 15-11-1991 by allowing the petition for divorce and directing dissolution of marital tie between his and Sabita. An application was filed on 7-1-1992 by Sabita purported to be one under Order 9. Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'C.P. C.') seeking to set aside the ex parte judgment which was 'numbered as Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992. The said application was dismissed-on 24-6-1993 as the parties were absent on repeated calls. On 2-1-1994 Kishore breathed pis last. On 19-1-1994 Misc. Case No. 9 of 1994 was filed by Sabita with prayer to implead the heirs of deceased Kishore, and for restoration of Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992, which was dismissed on 24-6-1993. Learned Judge. Family Court held that no case for restoration was made out, but directed parents-in-law, i. e., present Petitioners to be impleaded and to pay Sabita lump sum of Rs. 40,000/- in two instalments. It was directed that the copies of the judgment shall be sent to the Director General of Police, Orissa, Cuttack, D.I. G. of Police, P.M. T., Orissa, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack ana to the Accountant General, Orissa, Bhubaneswar for speedy disbursement of monetary and service benefits payable to - the parents of.deceased Kishore by the State Government. 40,000/- in two instalments. It was directed that the copies of the judgment shall be sent to the Director General of Police, Orissa, Cuttack, D.I. G. of Police, P.M. T., Orissa, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack ana to the Accountant General, Orissa, Bhubaneswar for speedy disbursement of monetary and service benefits payable to - the parents of.deceased Kishore by the State Government. The present Petitioners assailed the direction for their ampliation and the further direction for payment of lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Sabita assailed the rejection of prayer made under. Order 9, Rule 13, C.P. C. in Civil Appeal Nos. 23 and 19 of 1994 respectively. A Division Bench of this Court of which I was a member, held that the applications (a) for substitution, ami (b) under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC were maintainable, and the leaned Judge, Family Court was justified in accepting the prayers contained in the concerned placations. While accepting the prayer for substitution, the learned Judge, Family Court had directed payment of money by the in-laws. They were not heard on the question of liability to pay. Therefore, the direction in that regard was set aside. With the aforesaid, observations, C.A. No. 23 of 1994 was allowed to the extent indicated. So far as C.A. No. ]9 of 1994 is concerned, it was observed that there was sufficient cause shown for non appearance. It was further observed that too rigidistic approach had been adopted, which was not appropriate in view of the nature of dispute involved. The order, rejecting the prayer for restoration was held to be indefensible. Direction was given to the learned Judge, Family Court to hear the entire matter. 3. By the impugned order it was observed by the learned Judge, Family Court that.Misc. Case No. 9 of 1994 was to be treated to have been disposed of:in terms of the order of this Court and what remained for adjudication is Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992 filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC accompanied by tan application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. With reference to the records it was noticed that in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992 the parents of deceased. Kishore were, not substituted in his place. Direction was given for their inclusion as opposite parties. 4; Stand of the present Petitioners who were added as opposite parties in Misc. With reference to the records it was noticed that in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992 the parents of deceased. Kishore were, not substituted in his place. Direction was given for their inclusion as opposite parties. 4; Stand of the present Petitioners who were added as opposite parties in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992 was that objection had been filed in Misc. 'Case No. 9 of 1994 which was treated as objection in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992.. Another objection was filed by them to the effect that Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992 was earlier dismissed and subsequent application filed by Sabita was registered as Misc. Case No. 9 of 1994. Order passed in the said Misc. Case has been held by this Court to be unsustainable, and therefore, the order of dismissal passed in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992 is not in existence to be dealt with by learned Judge, Family Courtr. 5. Learned Judge, Family Court with reference to materials on record, keeping in view observations of this Court observed that Miss. Case No. 3 of 1992 was to be heard and I accordingly directed the parties to come ready Qn 29-9-1997 for "hearing of the said Misc. Case. The said order is under challenge in the present civil revision.. 6. In essence stand of the Petitioners is that the learned Judge, Family Court was not justified in holding that Misc. Case No. 9 of 1994 had been closed by the observations of this Court, and should not have been left out for consideration. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submitted that a detailed reading of the judgment of this Court shows that there was never any indication by this Court about closure of Misc. Case No. 9 of 1994. Learned Counsel for opposite party, however, submitted that the stand of the Petitioners is utterly frivolous. Stand relating to maintenance of the Civil Revision has also been raised. 7. I do not think it necessary to go into the question of maintainability of the Civil Revision in view of the fact that the stand of the Petitioners about pendency of Misc. Case No. 9 of 1994 is clearly unsustainable and untenable. A bare reading of paragraph 15 of the reported judgment puts the matter beyond any shadow of doubt. I do not think it necessary to go into the question of maintainability of the Civil Revision in view of the fact that the stand of the Petitioners about pendency of Misc. Case No. 9 of 1994 is clearly unsustainable and untenable. A bare reading of paragraph 15 of the reported judgment puts the matter beyond any shadow of doubt. The relevant portion reads as follows: ...So far as Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1994 is concerned, we find sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance. A too rigidistic approach has been adopted, which is not appropriate in a dispute of the present nature. The order rejecting the prayer for restoration is indefensible.... 8. Undisputedly Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1994 related to Misc. Case No. 9 of 1994, that being the position, the present Civil Revision is without any merit and is dismissed. No costs. Civil revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed