The High Court · 2025
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 17:57:01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.363 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust, Kolkata, West Bengal …. -versus- Petitioner Slurry Orissa Infrastructure Odisha and others Pipeline Ltd., Keonjhar, …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. D. Nanda, Senior Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Dash, Senior Advocate Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 21st August 2025 B.P. Routray, J.
Legal Reasoning
“20. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost. xx xx xx 22. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material
Arguments
1. Heard Mr. D. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Dash & Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocates for Opposite Party No.1. 2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the impugned order dated 24th January 2025 passed in C.S. No.162 of 2022 and I.A. No.62 of 2022 by C.M.P. No.363 of 2025 Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 17:57:01 the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Keonjhar, wherein the prayer for amendment of the Plaintiff has been allowed. 3. Present Opposite Party No.1 being the Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them to represent for the Plaintiff. Present Petitioner is Defendant No.1. As per the contention of the Defendants, it had huge amount outstanding against the Plaintiff. After filing of the suit, the interim order under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, C.P.C. was passed by the learned trial court restraining the Defendants from such activities as stated in the order. Said interim order dated 29th November 2022 is re-produced below. “Both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo till filing of show-cause in I.A. No. 62 of 2022. It is made clear that in the meantime the Opp. Parties are restrained from wrongfully representing themselves as the authorised representative of the petitioner/plaintiff and to initiate any proceeding before any Court of law wrongfully representing the petitioner/plaintiff till filing of show cause in I.A. No. 62 of 2022. This order is valid till filing of show-cause in I.A. No. 62 of 2022 by the opp. parties. Put up on 5.1.2023 for filing of show cause by the Opp. Parties and hearing of I.A. No. 62 of 2022. Both forthwith.” the parties be intimated accordingly 4. Pending filing of the show-cause in I.A. No.62 of 2022 and after filing of the W.S. in the suit, a petition for amendment was filed under C.M.P. No.363 of 2025 Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 17:57:01 Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. on 9th February 2024 seeking to insert the name of the Plaintiff as “Utkal Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd.” The said prayer for amendment was rejected by the learned trial court vide its order dated 4th April 2024 mainly on the ground that the same would change the nature and character of the suit. Thereafter another petition for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. was filed by the Plaintiff seeking change of name of the Plaintiffs as “Utkal Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd.” along with consequential changes in the plaint. The same was allowed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 24th January 2025, which is impugned in the present C.M.P. 5. It is submitted by Mr. D. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate for the Defendant-Petitioner that the change of name of the Plaintiff in the context of the prayer for permanent injunction would certainly change the nature and character of the suit and therefore is not permissible. In support of his contention, he submits that previously the same prayer for amendment by the Plaintiff was refused by the learned trial court on the ground that will change the nature and character of the suit and further by the impact of the impugned order now the Defendants would be prohibited from representing the present company as “Utkal C.M.P. No.363 of 2025 Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 17:57:01 Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd.” This is completely different from the earlier Plaintiff and thus would arise a different cause of action. 6. Mr. S.K. Dash & Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocates submit in reply on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 (Plaintiff) that it is not the change of the entity, but only change of name of entity and this is on the background of the resolution professional of the NCLT and therefore, by mere change of name of the Plaintiff neither it’s cause of action nor nature of the plaint is changed. It is further contended that the change of name of a party would not change its representation when the entity remains the same. 7. On the backdrop of such rival contentions, it needs to reproduce the description of Plaintiff. It was earlier as follows:- “Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Limited Having its registered office at H.No.119, Ward No.11, Badahal Road NH-6, Behind Indian Bank, Keonjhar, Odisha – 758001, India, represented through its Director Mr. Ravi Kant Jha aged about 39 years, At-Badahal, P.O.-Keonjhargarh, P.S.-Town, Dist.-Keonjhar” 8. As per amendment prayed in the petition under Annexure-9, the name of the Plaintiff proposed to be substituted is as follows:- “Utkal Pipeline Infrastructure Limited (formerly known as, Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Limited) Having its registered office at C.M.P. No.363 of 2025 Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 17:57:01 H.No.119, Ward No.11, Badahal Road NH-6, Behind Indian Bank, Keonjhar, Odisha – 758001, India Represented through its Authorized Representative Mr. Sambit Mohapatra.” 9. According to the Plaintiff, it changed the name only in terms of Section 13 of the Companies Act and it never changes its Board of Directors nor its entity as such. Sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of the Companies Act prescribes that, when any change in the name of a company is made under sub-section (2), the Registrar shall enter the new name in the register of companies in place of the old name and issue a fresh certificate of incorporation with the new name and the change in the name shall be complete and effective only on the issue of such a certificate. 10. The fact remains admitted that the Plaintiff-Company changed its name from “Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Limited” to “Utkal Pipeline Infrastructure Limited” pending the suit. Therefore, said change of name would bound to be brought on record by the Plaintiff in order to pursue the cause in the suit for the reliefs claimed. The question is, whether such change of name proposed to be incorporated substituting earlier name of the Plaintiff would have any bearing on the nature and character of the suit. C.M.P. No.363 of 2025 Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 17:57:01 11. Law is well settled that all amendments are to be allowed liberally unless it changes the nature and character of the suit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahila Ramkali Devi v. Nandram, (2015) 13 SCC 132, have stated as under:-