The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 857 of 2025 Rupesh Kumar Agarwal …. Appellant Priyasha Goenka …. Respondent -versus- Advocates appeared in this case:- For Appellant - Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. Rahul Ray, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK J U D G M E N T DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT : 23RD JULY, 2025 Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. 1. Heard Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rahul Ray, learned Advocate for the sole Respondent. 2. This intra-court appeal is against the judgment dated 28.03.2025 passed by
Decision
the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition W.P.(C) No.14411 of 2018 of the appellant that he preferred as a petitioner. 3. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2025 rejected the prayer of the petitioner, wherein he prayed for correction of his written statement W.A. No.857 of 2025 Page 1 of 11 that he filed in MACT (Misc. Case) No.17 of 2012 by filing application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Perused the records of W.P.(C) No.14411 of 2018. 5. Brief facts of the case is that on 04.09.2011 around 12:30 p.m. when the respondent herein with her friend Payal Choudhury were proceeding towards Master Canteen Square from Sriya Talkies Square in the road on their left side, then the appellant riding a Bajaj Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. OR 02 AL 9529 in a rash and negligent manner, knocked / dashed the respondent from backside, threw her to a considerable distance, in which she sustained severe head and multiple bodily injuries and became unconscious. She was immediately taken to the Nilachal Hospital, Unit-3, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar and subsequently, she was referred to the Apollo Hospital for her further medical treatment. For her such medical treatment, the respondent incurred significant financial loss. 6. The respondent, after her recovery, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bhubaneswar against the appellant, owner of the Bajaj Motor Cycle, involved in the said accident claiming compensation with interest for the injuries which she sustained in the said road traffic accident that was registered as MACT (Misc. Case) No.17 of 2012, presently pending before the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal). W.A. No. 857 of 2025 Page 2 of 11 7. The appellant, on receipt of notice, appeared before the said Tribunal and on 17.10.2012 filed his show cause reply / written statement in said MACT (Misc. Case) No.17/2012 denying the claim of the respondent. 8. After the closer of evidence from the side of the claimant/respondent herein on 20.04.2017, the appellant on 04.09.2017 filed his affidavit-in-evidence as OPW No.1. 9. After he was cross examined by the claimant/present respondent, the appellant on 16.04.2018, during pendency of the trial of said MACT (Misc. Case) No.17/2012, filed a petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC before the said Tribunal, praying for amendment to his show cause reply / written statement that he filed in said MACT case earlier on 17.10.2012, praying for its amendments by inserting the follows:- (i) In para-18, line No. 7, the word “it is not a fact” before the word “the rider”; (ii) In para-18, line No. 14, the word “and” after the word “Master Canteen Square” by deleting the “full stop”; and (iii) In para-18, line Nos. 15 and 17, the word “and” after the word “accident”, by deleting the “full stops”. 10. The respondent filed her objection before the said Tribunal to the petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the appellant. 11. By order dated 24.07.2018 the said Tribunal rejected the proposed amendment of his show cause reply / written statement filed by the appellant under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC, holding that the law is well settled that amendment cannot be allowed after the commencement of the hearing and further, withdrawal of W.A. No. 857 of 2025 Page 3 of 11 admission made in the course of cross-examination also cannot be allowed by way of an amendment. 12. The said Tribunal in its order dated 24.07.2018 also held that if the proposed amendment of show cause reply / written statement of the appellant is allowed, he will be able to cover up the latches and deficiencies in his written statement / show cause reply and that the admission that he had made in his objection will amount to be withdrawn. 13. By the said order dated 24.07.2018 the Tribunal further held that it cannot be said that the appellant was not aware of his own pleadings during the six years of pendency of the said proceeding. 14. For those reasons, the said Tribunal by its order dated 24.07.2018 rejected the said amendment petition of the appellant filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC and fixed the said MACT (Misc. Case) No.17/2012 for further evidence of opposite parties of the said case. 15. Aggrieved with the said rejection order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the said Tribunal, the appellant preferred the Writ Petition W.P.(C) No.14411 of 2018 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying amongst others ⸺ to set aside and quash the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the learned 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in MACT (Misc. Case) No.17 of 2012 for the greater interest of justice. 16. While issuing notice to the respondent in said W.P.(C) No.14411/2018, the learned single Judge on 14.08.2018, in the interim, stayed the further proceeding of W.A. No. 857 of 2025 Page 4 of 11 said MACT (Misc. Case) No.17 of 2012 pending before the learned 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar. 17. The contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that as certain inadvertent typographical and clerical errors had occurred in his written statement that he had filed in said MACT (Misc. Case) No.17 of 2012 before the said Tribunal, which came to his knowledge only during the trial of the said MACT proceeding, he immediately, without any undue delay, filed the petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC before the said Tribunal seeking an amendment / correction and removal of the erroneous typographical and clerical errors. As the learned Tribunal by its order dated 24.07.2018 rejected his petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC, it caused prejudice to him and he being interested, it caused sheer injustice to him. 18. According to the appellant such amendment of his written statement would not alter the nature and character of the written statement that he had filed in said MACT (Misc. Case) No.17/2012 before the Tribunal, and on such rejection by order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the Tribunal, he is now in a position of admitting that the respondent was injured by his vehicle. The appellant also contended that the same is contrary to the protection guaranteed to him under the Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 19. The other contention of the appellant in the writ petition was that the Tribunal compelled him to proceed with an erroneous written statement, where inadvertent typographical and clerical errors had occurred, creating an impression of his W.A. No. 857 of 2025 Page 5 of 11 admission to the allegations made against him, which not only caused grave injustice to him but also defeated the very purpose of ensuring justice. 20. The appellant also contended before the learned Single Judge that Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC does not have any direct application in MACT Case. According to the appellant, his proposed amendment, if allowed, would not have altered the nature and character of the case nor it would have prejudiced the respondent in any manner and therefore, the appellant stated that had the said amendment been allowed by the Tribunal, it would have served the ends of justice 21. As such, the appellant prayed before the learned Single Judge to set aside the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the Tribunal in said MACT (Misc. Case) No.17/2012 and to allow his proposed amendment, pertaining to his written statement that he had filed in the said MACT Case. 22. On the other hand, the respondent urged before the Court that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not contain any such provisions for the amendment or alteration to the show-cause reply / written statement or petitions filed by the parties. It is also contended by the respondent that, in said MACT (Misc. Case) No.17 of 2012, trial had already commenced before the learned Tribunal and that the appellant filed his application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of his show-cause reply after commencement of the trial of the said MACT Case without stating or giving any explanation pertaining to due diligence as to why he did not seek amendment of his said show cause reply prior to the commencement of the trial of the said MACT case, except stating about inadvertent typographical and clerical W.A. No. 857 of 2025 Page 6 of 11 errors that had occurred in his said reply, which, according to him, came to his knowledge only during the trial of the said proceedings. 23. According to the respondent, if the amendment sought for by the appellant is allowed, it would fundamentally alter the nature and character of the said MACT Case and would amount to introduction of entirely a new case, which would change the original defence taken by the appellant in his show cause reply / written statement. The respondent placed before the Court that the appellant after six years of initiation of the said MACT proceeding, submitted the said application under Oder VI, Rule 17 of the CPC before the Tribunal and that he completely failed to provide any justification for such prolonged delay in seeking amendment of his show-cause reply / written statement. 24. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria -Vs- Sheo Prakash Kajaria & Others, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 203, the respondent submitted that the appellant cannot withdraw the admissions that he had made in his show-cause reply / written statement by an amendment petition filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC that too after his cross examination. For such reasons the respondent contended that the prayer of the appellant cannot be considered for amendment of his show-cause reply submitted in said MACT (Misc. Case) No.17/2012 and that the learned Tribunal by the order dated 24.07.2018 rightly rejected the said amendment of the appellant. 25. We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.14411/2018, that is assailed by the appellant. W.A. No. 857 of 2025 Page 7 of 11 26. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2025, pondered the fact that the principle regarding the amendment of pleadings as provided under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC has to be considered as to whether such amendment will cause any injustice or prejudice to the respondent / other side and whether such amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 27. In the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2025 learned Single Judge discussed the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of: - i) North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur -Vs- Bhagwan Das, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511. ii) Pirgonda Hongonda Patil -Vs- Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others, reported in 1957 SCR 595; iii) Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others -Vs- K. K. Modi & Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 and iv) Life Insurance Corporation India -Vs- Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1. 28. In the impugned judgment learned Single Judge found that, at paragraph-13 of his written statement / show cause reply filed in MACT (Misc. Case) No.17/2012, the appellant before the Tribunal made an admission of causing a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving and as such the said Court came to a finding that if the proposed amendment sought for by the appellant is allowed, it would enable him to withdraw the said admission and rectify the deficiency in his defence that would substantially alter the course of the case and would raise a significant issue and in such circumstance, amendment is generally not permissible. As such, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that such amendment is W.A. No. 857 of 2025 Page 8 of 11 generally not permitted after commencement of hearing of a case, when it involves withdrawing of admission made in the stage of cross-examination. 29. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2025 also found that the appellant cannot reasonably claim to be ignorant on his own pleading not particularly in a case that is pending for about six years before the learned Tribunal, which indicates that he was aware of the contents of his own written statement including the admission that he had made therein at paragraph-18, where the appellant acknowledged of causing the accident due to rash and negligent driving. The learned single Judge in the impugned judgment observed that such deficient on the part of the appellant that too after such significant amount of time, cannot be overlooked, as he had ample opportunity to address any of his discrepancy and/or errors in his pleading much before the amendment that he had sought for. 30. Considering the above, the learned Single Judge by the impugned Judgment dated 28.03.2025, came to the conclusion that the prayer of the writ petitioner / appellant herein pertaining to amendment of his written statement submitted before the said Tribunal under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC has no merit and that, such amendment sought for by the appellant/petitioner are also not permissible under the circumstances, as he had already admitted the fact that he had committed the accident due to rash and negligent driving. Learned Single Judge by the said impugned Judgment also came to a finding that, if such amendment, as sought for by the appellant herein is allowed, it would enable him to withdraw the said admission that he had made earlier before the said Tribunal, which would substantially prejudice the respondent. Accordingly, finding no merit, the learned Single Judge by W.A. No. 857 of 2025 Page 9 of 11 its judgment dated 28.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.14411 of 2018, dismissed the said writ petition of the appellant. 31. We have considered the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.14411 of 2018 as well as the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in MACT (Misc. Case) No.17/2012 rejecting the petition of the appellant submitted under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC. 32. Keeping in mind the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the judgments noted above that were cited in the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that the amendment to pleading must not change the nature of the suit and it must be timely and the delay as well as lack of specificity can justify dismissal of such amendments. Moreover, law is well established that amendment of pleading is permissible before commencement of the trial of a case, if made within a reasonable time. 33. Considering the stage of the MACT (Misc. Case) No.17/2012 pending before the learned 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar as well as the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC, we found that the 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar by its order dated 24.07.2018 passed in MACT (Misc. Case) No.17/2012 has rightly rejected the appellant’s petition submitted under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC. 34. For the reasons above, we are of the view that the impugned Judgment dated 28.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.14411 of 2018 does not call for any interference. W.A. No. 857 of 2025 Page 10 of 11 35. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. ( Harish Tandon ) Chief Justice ( M. R. Pathak ) Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated, the 23rd day of July, 2025. Ranjeeta. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJEETA SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 15-Oct-2025 14:05:08 W.A. No. 857 of 2025 Page 11 of 11