JUDGMENT Dr.D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. - This Misc. Case has been filed by the opposite party No.5 (a) and 5 (b) to the original writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.13390 of 2008 wherein prayer has been made to set aside the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed in the said writ petition with a further prayer to re-hear the main writ petition. 2. Mr. D.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in this Misc. Case, submitted that the original opposite party No.5 in the writ petition, namely, Narayan Maharana died while the said writ petition was pending before this Court. According to him, a petition for substitution was filed to substitute opposite party No.5 (a) and 5 (b) in place of opposite party No.5. After the consolidated cause title of the writ petition is filed, no copy of the writ petition was served either by post or through Court upon the opposite party No.5 (a) and 5 (b) who are the petitioners in this Misc. Case. 3. Mr. D.S. Mishra, learned Counsel further submitted that present petitioners, in this Misc. Case, were not properly represented in this writ petition but the same was disposed of. He submitted that they have filed another writ petition, i.e. W.P. (C) No.11073 of 2012 and that is pending for disposal before this Court and while the same is pending, it is surprised to find out that this writ petition (W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008) was disposed of without hearing the opposite party No.5 (a) and 5 (b).Since they are not properly substituted and contested the case, the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2018 is not binding on them and the same should be set aside and the said writ petition be re-heard. 4. Mr. A.R.Dash, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition, relying on the objection dated 21.06.2018 to Misc. Case lNo.23004 of 2017, submitted that as per the direction of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.15148 of 2013, the consolidated cause title of the writ petition incorporating the names of the legal heirs of opposite party No.5 was served on 27.09.2013 on proper receipt. 5. Mr. Case lNo.23004 of 2017, submitted that as per the direction of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.15148 of 2013, the consolidated cause title of the writ petition incorporating the names of the legal heirs of opposite party No.5 was served on 27.09.2013 on proper receipt. 5. Mr. Dash, learned Counsel for the writ petition further submitted that vide order dated 17.07.2013 passed in W.P. (C) No.11073 of 2012, this Court passed an order to list the said writ petition along with W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008 for analogous hearing and accordingly, both the writ petitions were taken up together. On 25.07.2017, when W.P. (C) No. 13390 of 2008 was taken up, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.5 (a) and 5 (b) did not remain present but the matter was heard in W.P.(C) No.13390 of 2008 and judgment was reserved and on the said date due to non-appearance of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No.11073 of ;2012, who are opposite party No.5 (a) and 5 (b) in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008, the said writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. On 14.11.2017, the judgment in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008 was delivered but surprisingly the present petitioners have filed this Misc. Case on 21.12.2017 to set aside the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008 and to re-hear them. Hence, the said prayer does not deserve any consideration and the same should be rejected. 6. Considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respective parties and gone through the materials available on record. It is pertinent to go through the records of both the writ petitions to find out the fact and circumstances. On perusal of the records in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008, it appears that the Executive Officer, Lord Lingaraj Temple, Bhubaneswar has filed the said writ petition against the State Authorities and opposite party No.5-Narayan Maharana, whose legal heirs are present opposite party No. 5(a) and (b). It is admitted fact that Narayana Maharana died during pendency of the writ petition. On perusal of both writ petitions, it appears that both the writ petitions are filed challenging the common order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in OEA Revision Case No.88 of 2000. It is admitted fact that Narayana Maharana died during pendency of the writ petition. On perusal of both writ petitions, it appears that both the writ petitions are filed challenging the common order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in OEA Revision Case No.88 of 2000. In that revision, learned Member, Board of Revenue, by creating a third case, has set aside the settlement of property in favour of the Deity-Lord Lingaraj in OEA Case No.167/77 (T) and at the same time, learned Member, Board of Revenue did not believe the tenancy of opposite party No.5 and his successors over the suit house standing on the suit land. The Executive Officer of Lord Lingaraj Temple filed W.P. (C) No.13390 of ;2008 arraying opposite party No.5 and after him opposite party No. 5 (a) and 5 (b) along with the State Authorities and Temple Administration whereas W.P. (C) No.11073 of 2012 has been filed by the opposite party No. 5 (a) and 5 (b) as petitioners against State Authorities and Temple Administration. 7. On perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that during pendency of W.P. (C) No.13390 of ;2008, opposite party No.5-Narayana Maharana died for which a petition (Misc. Case No.15148 of 2013) was filed by the petitioner to substitute by impleading opposite party No. 5 (a) and 5 (b) and the same was allowed vide order dated 26.09.2013.Said order dated 26.09.2013 is reproduced as under : “Misc. Case No.13390 of 2008. 4. 26.09.2013. – Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ application, opposite party No.5, namely, Narayan Moharana died leaving behind his widow wife and one son as his legal heirs. Therefore, he prays for substitution of legal heirs as per the schedule given in the Misc. Case. Considering the reasons stated in the application, prayer for substitution is allowed. The legal heirs of opposite Party No.5 be impleaded as opposite party Nos. 5 (a) and 5 (b) as per the schedule given in the Misc. Case. Consolidated copy of the cause title of the writ petition incorporating the names of the legal heirs of opposite party No.5 shall be filed by Monday (30.09.2013) after serving copies thereof to the petitioners in W.P. (C) No.11073 of 2012. Misc. Case is disposed of.” 8. 5 (a) and 5 (b) as per the schedule given in the Misc. Case. Consolidated copy of the cause title of the writ petition incorporating the names of the legal heirs of opposite party No.5 shall be filed by Monday (30.09.2013) after serving copies thereof to the petitioners in W.P. (C) No.11073 of 2012. Misc. Case is disposed of.” 8. The copy of the memo dated 27.09.2013 attached to the objection dated 21.06.2018 shows that on 27.09.2013, the copy of the consolidated cause title of the writ petition and its Annexures were served on the learned Counsel for the opposite party No.5 and his legal heirs. Of course, the petitioner in the writ petition should have filed the same in the registry so as not to take any other view as submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 5 (a) and (b). Be that as it may, the copy of the memo cannot be said untrue. However, on further perusal of the order sheet maintained in W.P. (C) No.11073 of 2012, it appears that on 17.07.2013, the Division Bench of this Court called the said writ petition along with W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008 on the prayer of all the parties. Then both the matters were running together. But the order dated 25.07.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008 shows that on that date, on the same day, the order dated 25.07.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No.11073 of 2012 shows that opposite party No.5 (a) and (b), being petitioners in the said writ petition, remained absent for which W.P. (C) No.11073 of 2012 was dismissed for non-prosecution. So on 25.07.2017, W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008 was heard and judgment was reserved. The judgment in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008 only came out on 14.11.2017.Surprisingly, the present Misc. Case was filed on 21.12.2017 challenging the said judgment. 9. From the aforesaid entire facts and circumstances, as revealed from the order-sheet maintained in both the writ petitions, the opposite party No. 5 (a) and (b) were well aware about pendency of the writ petitions and hearing in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008. It is not a fact that the opposite party No. 5 (a) and (b) or the original opposite party No.5 is quite ignorant of proceedings in both the writ petitions. It is not a fact that the opposite party No. 5 (a) and (b) or the original opposite party No.5 is quite ignorant of proceedings in both the writ petitions. When in W.P. (C) No.11073 of 2012, an order was passed for analogous hearing of both the writ petitions in presence of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No.11073 of 2012, who are also opposite party No. 5 (a) and 5 (b) in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008, the present plea of the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 5 (a) and (b), who are petitioners in this case, is nothing but a falsehood and it is sheer design to stall the process of adjudication of the writ petitions. On the other hand, the notice has been issued, well served and opposite party No.5 (a) and 5 (b) remained absent for the reasons best known to them. Since in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008, where the present petitioners, in this Misc. Case, who are opposite party No. 5 (a) and (b) to the said writ petition, and the said writ petition was disposed of on merit, the absence of the opposite party No. 5 (a) and (b) or their learned Counsel cannot be taken plea that they were not provided opportunity of being heard. On the other hand, the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008 is binding on the parties including opposite party No.5 (a) and 5 (b) to W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008, who are none other than the present petitioners to this Misc. Case. 10. In terms of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that there is no any reasonable ground to set aside the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No.13390 of 2008. Accordingly, Misc. Case No.23004 of 2017, being sans of merit, is hereby dismissed. S.K. MISHRA, J. I agree. Misc. case dismissed.