The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 14-Oct-2025 11:50:07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.483 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Smt. Jayantilata Jena …. Petitioner -versus- Radhakrushna Barik … Opposite Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. P.S. Mohanty, Advocate. For Opp. Party : Mr. B. Mohapatra, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 9th October, 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Ms. P.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party. 2. Present Petitioner who is the Plaintiff in C.S. No.215/289 of 2022, pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore challenges order dated 4th March, 2025 of the trial court refusing her prayer to amend the pleadings. CMP No.483 of 2025 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 14-Oct-2025 11:50:07 3. The Plaintiff by way of amendment through her petition dated 21st October, 2024 sought to amend the description of suit schedule plots on the ground of inadvertent typographical mistake. Such prayer of the Plaintiff was rejected by the trial court on the ground that she failed to explain due diligence on her part in bringing the amendment in time vide impugned order dated 4th March, 2025. 4. The suit was for demarcation, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. 5. It is seen from the amendment petition filed under Annexure-3 that the schedule of proposed amendment is almost the same as suit schedule A and B property. In the original plaint schedule „A‟ property is Plot No.308 measuring Ac.0.01 dec., Plot No.309 measuring Ac.0.24 dec., Plot No.310 measuring Ac.0.08 dec., Plot No.310/1215 measuring Ac.0.08 dec. and Plot No.308/1198 measuring Ac.0.11 dec. As per the amendment sought for, neither the plot numbers nor the extent of area thereof are proposed to be changed, but certain clarifications with regard to not final RoR in respect of suit schedule „A‟ property and another fraction of land in Plot No.308/1199, carved out of Plot No.308 was sought to be incorporated. Thus it is seen that Plaintiff seeks rectification of the CMP No.483 of 2025 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 14-Oct-2025 11:50:07 schedule plot numbers without specific change in the extent thereof by way of amendment. It is stated by the Plaintiff that such rectifications proposed to be incorporated by way of amendment could not be brought earlier due to oversight and inadvertent mistake. 6. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaraj v. Indira, (2024) 3 SCC 705, have discussed the principles under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. in the matter of amendments and explained as follows:- “12. This Court in M.Revanna v. Anjanamma [M. Revanna v. Anjanamma, (2019) 4 SCC 332 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 338] opined that an application for amendment may be rejected if it seeks to introduce totally different, new and inconsistent case or changes the fundamental character of the suit. Order 6 Rule 17CPC prevents an application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the issue. The burden is on the party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show that in spite of due diligence such amendment could not be sought earlier. It is not a matter of right. Para 7 thereof is extracted below : (SCC p. 335) “7. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or CMP No.483 of 2025 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 14-Oct-2025 11:50:07 challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.” (emphasis supplied) .. xx .. xx .. 14. This Court in Revajeetu case [Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 37] enumerated the factors to be taken into consideration by the court while dealing with an application for amendment. One of the important factor is as to whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the other side or it CMP No.483 of 2025 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 14-Oct-2025 11:50:07 fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case or a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred on the date of filing the application.” 7. In the case at hand, it is true that the evidence from the side of Plaintiff has been closed and the case is awaiting evidence from the side of Defendant. At this stage the Plaintiff wanted to insert the rectified plot numbers without changing the extent of land and extant plot numbers. Thus it is seen that the amendment is mainly intended for bringing rectification or correction in identification of such plots for better adjudication of the dispute. 8. As stated earlier the suit is for demarcation along with permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. So keeping the nature of the suit in view and taking note of its stage as well as the amendment sought for, which is basically intended to insert certain corresponding earlier plot numbers and subsequent bifurcation of plots that was omitted at the initial stage, it cannot be opined in strict sense that the same would bring new facts in the pleadings. Thus the finding of the trial court that in case of incorporation of such proposed amendment it would lead to de novo trial does not hold good. The description and further description of the suit schedule CMP No.483 of 2025 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 14-Oct-2025 11:50:07 plots in detail, without changing the extent of land and khata number or its geographical extent, would certainly no way affect the merit of the claim of the Plaintiff. Thus a liberal approach can be given to the prayer of the plaintiff to bring all such details in the suit schedule lands which would be necessary for determination of the real dispute between the parties.
Decision
9. In the result the CMP is allowed and the impugned order dated 4th March, 2025 is set aside. The Plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as prayed by him in the petition dated 21st October, 2024. ( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K. Panda/P.A CMP No.483 of 2025 Page 6 of 6