Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 An application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 *** Sabitri Palei … Petitioner -VERSUS- Bhikari Palei & Others … Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr.B.C.Panda, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr.N.Lenka, Advocate P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 11.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025 C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 1 of 12 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
(Plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013) against the O.Ps (Defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013) praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5) passed in C.S. No.501 of 2013 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kendrapara. 2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which prompted the Petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Petitioner being the Plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013 against the O.Ps (arraying them as Defendants) praying for declaration that, the sale deed dated 06.09.2013 said to have been executed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of Defendant No.3 in respect of the suit properties as illegal and collusive and to injunct the Defendants permanently from entering into the suit property. Having been noticed from the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013, the Defendants filed their joint written statement denying the allegations alleged by the Plaintiff against C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 2 of 12 them taking their stands that, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the lawful owners and in possession over the suit properties and they (Defendant Nos.1 and 2) have sold the same to the Defendant No.3 through R.S.D. dated 06.09.2013, for which, the Plaintiff has no right, title, interest and possession over the same. Therefore, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. . 3. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the Parties, issues were framed and trial was commenced in the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013. After closure of the evidence from the side of the Plaintiff, when, the suit was fixed for evidence from the side of the Defendants, the defendants file a petition on dated 24.09.2015 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying for amendment of their written statement in order to insert some Paras in the written statement concerning their title in the suit properties on the basis of R.S.D. No.126 of 1936, to which, he (Defendant No.1) got from his old “Sinduka”. 4. To which, the Plaintiff objected on the ground that, after closure of evidence from his side, the proposed amendment sought for by the Defendants cannot be allowed. If, the proposed amendment of the Defendants will be allowed, the same shall C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 3 of 12 cause serious prejudice to him (Plaintiff). For which, the Petition under order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. of the Defendants is liable to be rejected. 5. After hearing from both the sides, as per order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5), the learned Trial Court allowed that Petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Defendants on dated 24.09.2015 and allowed the Defendants to amend their written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- (Five hundred) to the Plaintiff assigning the reasons that, “the prayer for amendment of the written statement of the Defendants should not be considered with the same rigor and strictness as the amendment sought for by the Plaintiff for the amendment of its plaint and the delay in filing of the proposed amendment may be compensated by way of cost against the Defendants”. 6. On being dissatisfied with the said impugned order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5) passed in C.S. No.501 of 2013, the Plaintiff challenged the same by filing this CMP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the same against the Defendants arraying them (Defendants) as Opposite Parties. C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 4 of 12 7. I have heard already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. 8. According to the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is that, Whether, the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Kendrapara in C.S. No.501 of 2013 allowing the Petition for amendment of the written statement of the Defendants (O.Ps in this CMP) subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- (Five hundred) after closure of evidence from the side of the Plaintiff (Petitioner in this CMP) is legally sustainable under law? 9. It is the established propositions of law that, at the time of consideration of the petition for amendment of the pleadings of the Parties, it is the duty of the Court to see that, whether the proposed amendment of the pleadings is relevant for the purpose of just decision of the suit or not. Because, the intention of the legislature for inclusion of the provisions under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 is for no other reason, but, for the compliances of the principles of natural C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 5 of 12 justice i.e. in order to give opportunity to the Parties for ventilating their all grievances relating to the subject matter of the suit against each other for the full and final adjudication of all controversies between them in one suit/lis for all times to come in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations between them. 10. The prayer for amendment of the written statement should not be considered with the same rigor and strictness as a prayer for amendment of the plaint. Because, Parameters for amending written statement are different from amendment of the plaint, only for the reasons that, the Defendants has right to take many pleas, which may be inconsistent or alternative, which is not as like as plaintiff in its plaint. An amendment of the pleadings can be allowed, when, the same satisfied two criterias i.e.:- (i) If, the proposed amendment is allowed, the same will not cause injustice to other side. (ii) If, the proposed amendment is allowed, the same will be unnecessary for the purpose of determining real questions in controversies between the parties. 11. The law has also been settled that, if any amendment is sought after commencement of the trial of the suit as in this C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 6 of 12 matter at hand, then, it is to be shown by the applicant that, in spite of due diligence, such proposed amendment could not have been sought for earlier. The object behind it, is that, to prevent frivolous applications, which are filed to delay the trial. 12. Here in this matter at hand, when, after closure of evidence from the side of the plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013, the Defendants filed Petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 praying for amendment of their written statement in order to insert some Paras relating to the tracing out of the old registered sale deed of the year 1936 from their old “Sinduka” in respect of the tile of the properties and when, the Trial Court has allowed such proposed amendment of the Defendants through the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5) subject to payment of Cost of Rs.500/- (Five hundred) to the Plaintiff, then at this juncture, by applying the propositions of law concerning the main object/purpose of the Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 to this matter at hand, it is held that, the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the proposed amendment of the written statement of the Defendants cannot be held as erroneous, but, the order concerning payment of Cost i.e. Rs.500/- (Five hundred) to the C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 7 of 12 Plaintiff (Petitioner) for allowing such amendment of written statement of the Defendants at the belated stage of the suit cannot be held as adequate. Because, it is very fundamental in Civil law that, in case of allowing any application of any party in delay, other party should be compensated properly for such delay, as the said delay ultimately protracts the litigation causing some pecuniary loss to the other side. 13. Here in this matter at hand, when the petition for amendment of the written statement was filed by the defendants at the midst of the trial after closure of evidence from the side of the Plaintiff and when it is the law as per the ratio of the decision between Sova Dei & Another Vrs. Krushna Chandra Pratap Singh & Others reported in 2012 (II) CLR 53 in Para No.8 that, “when amendment to the pleading, is allowed, the same relates back to the date of filing of the original pleadings except in a case where the amendment is relatable to the law of limitation”. For which, due to relate back to the date of filing of the written statement by the defendants through the proposed amendment, the Trial Court should have imposed more cost than C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 8 of 12 Rs.500/- (Five hundred) against the Defendants for allowing their prayer for amendment of written statement in order to compensate the pecuniary losses of the Plaintiff properly, but, the learned Trial Court has not done so. That apart, even though, the learned Trial Court allowed the petition for proposed amendment of the written statement of the defendants, but, the learned Trial Court has not given any opportunity to the Plaintiff for amending his plaint commensurating the proposed amendment of the written statement of the defendants and for adducing rebuttal evidence concerning the amendments of the written statement of the defendants and for framing of any additional issues in respect of the same. For which, when the learned Trial Court allowed the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC of the Defendants for amendment of their written statement through the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5), the learned Trial Court should have allowed the Plaintiff to amend his plaint relating to the amendment of the pleadings of the defendants as well as for framing new issues relating to the amended portions of the C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 9 of 12 written statement and to adduce any additional evidence in respect of the same. Therefore, there is justification under law for making some interference with the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kendrapara in C.S. No.501 of 2013 through this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Plaintiff by this Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction for the reasons stated above. 14. So, there is some merit in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Petitioner (Plaintiff). The same is to be allowed in part on contest. 15. In result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed in part. 16. The impugned order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Trial Court in C.S. No.501 of 2013 concerning the allowing of the proposed amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC of the Defendants for amendment of their written statement is confirmed, but, the cost imposed in the impugned C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 10 of 12 order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5) i.e. Rs.500/- (five hundred) for allowing such amendment is enhanced from Rs.500/- (five hundred) to Rs.5000/-(five thousand) giving liberty to the Plaintiff (Petitioner in this CMP) to amend his plaint according to the proposed amendment of the written statement of the Defendants and for framing of any additional issues relating to the said amendment and for adducing any additional evidence by the Plaintiff concerning the amendment of the written statement of the defendants, if he (Plaintiff) desires for the same. 17. So, for the reasons stated above, modifying the impugned order passed on dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5) by the learned Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Kendrapara in C.S. No.501 of 2013 to
Decision
the extent as indicated above, this CMP is disposed of finally. 18. The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial vide C.S. No.501 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the filing of the certified copy of this judgment by the Parties in the said suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013 before the learned Trial Court. 19. The Parties of this CMP are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013 on dated C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 11 of 12 16.10.2025 to file the certified copy of this judgment for the purpose of receiving the directions of the learned Trial Court as to further proceedings of the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013 for its final disposal within stipulated period as indicated above. 20. As such, this CMP filed by the Petitioner (Plaintiff) is disposed of finally. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 24.09.2025// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Sep-2025 17:43:56 C.M.P. No.1697 of 2015 Page 12 of 12