The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 24-Nov-2025 17:49:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.268 of 2025 & CMP No.303 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) CMP No.268 of 2025 Raghunath Piri and Others …. Petitioners -versus- Pulak Chandra Sen and Others CMP No.303 of 2025 Raghunath Piri and Others … …. Opposite Parties Petitioners -versus- Pulak Chandra Sen and Others … Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in both the cases:- For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Ms. P.S. Mohanty, counsel for O.P.4 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 18th November, 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. P.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 in both the cases. CMP No.268 of 2025 & CMP No.303 of 2025 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 24-Nov-2025 17:49:02 2. Both the CMPs are arising out of the inter-related orders passed in CS No.286 of 2004 pending in the court of learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore and as such they are heard together and
Decision
disposed of by this common judgment. 3. CMP No.268 of 2025 is directed against impugned order dated 11th October, 2023 wherein the prayer of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was rejected. In CMP No.303 of 2025 the order dated 6th December, 2025 is sought to be challenged wherein the prayer of the plaintiff under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking recall of earlier order dated 11th December, 2023 and the prayer for modification of order basing upon the amendment petition dated 10th August, 2023 was refused. 4. Present petitioner in both the cases is the plaintiff in the suit and he prays for a declaration for specific performance of contract in respect of suit schedule ‘A’ property. 5. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the tenant under the defendant. In the plaint an averment was taken at paragraph 9 that the defendant has granted hand-written receipt in favour of the plaintiff regarding payment of rent of the suit shop house. When the defendant entered CMP No.268 of 2025 & CMP No.303 of 2025 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 24-Nov-2025 17:49:02 his appearance, in his written statement, he took a plea that he does not know reading and writing Odia. Thereafter the plaintiff seek amendment of the plaint in his petition dated 10th August, 2023 to incorporate the fact that defendant no.1 is able to read and write Odia and he has issued the hand-written receipt in Odia. The defendant objected the same that when the suit is at the stage when P.W.1 has been examined from the side of plaintiff such amendment at the instance of the plaintiff is not admissible at this belated stage. 6. The learned trial court rejected the prayer for amendment mainly on the ground that in the meantime the original plaintiff died and incorporation of such fact by present plaintiff, which was within the knowledge of the original plaintiff but not incorporated initially, cannot be adduced by way of amendment at such later stage. 7. Thereafter the plaintiff filed another petition dated 7th November, 2023 under Section 151 of C.P.C. to recall that order dated 11th October, 2023 of the trial court which was also refused on the ground that the plaintiff is unnecessarily delaying the matter as once the plea was rejected the same should not be re-agitated. CMP No.268 of 2025 & CMP No.303 of 2025 Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 24-Nov-2025 17:49:02 8. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the plaintiff – petitioner submits that when the stand was taken in the written statement denying the knowledge of defendant no.1 to read and write Odia, it is necessary on the part of the plaintiff to clarify his stand with regard to grant of receipts by him in favour of the plaintiff and thus the amendment is necessary. 9. Conversely, Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel for the defendant (opposite party) submits that the rejection of prayer for amendment by the plaintiff is dated 11th October, 2023 and the plaintiff does not chose to challenge the same immediately, instead preferred to file a petition for recall to delay the matter thereby. So after such delay present challenge of the plaintiff with regard to both the impugned orders is not sustainable. It is also submitted by her that when the initial pleading of the plaintiff is with regard to specific stand in respect of defendant no.1 about his status to read and write Odia, the proposed amendment is an afterthought one to introduce new fact in the plaint which is not permissible. 10. The general principles for amendment has been well settled in the case of M. Revanna v. Anjanamma, (2019) 4 SCC 332 and Life CMP No.268 of 2025 & CMP No.303 of 2025 Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 24-Nov-2025 17:49:02 Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another, (2022) 16 SCC 1. 11. As seen from the copy of plaint as well as from the amendment petition dated 10th August, 2023 the plaintiff seek to insert the fact of knowledge of defendant no.1 to read and write Odia by granting hand-written receipt as a matter in clarification to his earlier stand made in the plaint. Because it is specifically pleaded in the plaint that defendant no.1 has granted the receipt with regard to receipt of rent of the shop house in favour of the plaintiff. Thus taking into account the stand taken by the defendant in the written statement denying his knowledge to read and write Odia, of course the onus somehow comes on the plaintiff to establish that such receipts have been granted by defendant no.1. Therefore in view of the denial of defendant no.1 about his knowledge to read and write Odia, the probable dispute to be adjudicated is whether defendant no.1 has granted such hand-written receipts knowing reading and writing Odia. Though the parties present before this court are not available with the copy of issues framed in the suit but considering the fact of denial of knowledge of reading and writing Odia by defendant no.1, CMP No.268 of 2025 & CMP No.303 of 2025 Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 24-Nov-2025 17:49:02 the amendment sought for by the plaintiff is considered as a matter of clarificatory in nature to the plea already taken in the plaint. 12. As stated in the above stated decisions, every amendment should be allowed unless it changes the nature and character of the suit or cause prejudice or injustice to the adverse party and additionally the same is brought with due promptitude. Here the question arose that though the written statement was filed during the lifetime of the original plaintiff, why this amendment was sought for at a later stage when P.W.1 was examined from the side of the plaintiff. However, taking a balancing approach such delay on the part of the plaintiff to bring such amendment can be ignored keeping in view the fact that the amendment is not causing any harm to the adverse party nor it is changing the nature and character of the reliefs prayed for. Thus considering all such factors, in the opinion of this court, it would be appropriate to permit the plaintiff to incorporate the amendment as sought for by him in his petition dated 10th August, 2023, subject to payment of cost. 13. Accordingly both the CMPs are allowed and the impugned orders dated 11th October, 2023 as well as 6th December, 2024 are set aside. The prayer for amendment sought by the plaintiff in his CMP No.268 of 2025 & CMP No.303 of 2025 Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 24-Nov-2025 17:49:02 petition dated 10th August, 2023 filed before the trial court is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- (five thousand) to be paid to the defendant before the trial court within a period of 30 days from today. 14. Both the CMPs are disposed of as allowed. M.K. Panda/P.A ( B.P. Routray) Judge CMP No.268 of 2025 & CMP No.303 of 2025 Page 7 of 7