The High Court · 2025
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:20:31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1717 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Kuni Sahani and others …. Petitioners -versus- Basanta Kumari Mohanty and others …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B. Senapati, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, Advocate For O.P. Nos.1 to 3 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 23rd December 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Senapati, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 to 3. 2. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 09.10.2025 of learned Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalaya, Brahmagiri passed in T.S. No.167 of 1995, wherein the prayer for amendment in the suit schedule land has been allowed at the stage of argument. C.M.P. No.1717 of 2025 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:20:31 3. Present Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are the Plaintiffs, who filed the suit praying for recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The dispute between the Plaintiffs and Defendants in the suit is regarding a patch of land lying in between their respective lands, i.e. Plot No.1602 and 1603. Admittedly, Plot No.1602 belongs to the Plaintiffs and Plot No.1603 belongs to the Defendants. A stretch of land (hereinafter referred as ‘disputed land’) in between Plot Nos.1602 and 1603 is the subject matter of dispute upon which both the parties claim their possession. Accordingly, a Survey Knowing Commissioner was deputed, who submitted his report. While cross-examining the said Survey Knowing Commissioner, it came to surface that he measured the plots by referring to corresponding consolidation map and consolidation plots. At such stage, the amendment was sought by the Plaintiffs to insert corresponding plot number in respect of the suit schedule Plot No.1602, which was allowed by the learned trial court. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners (Defendants) that, once the reference is made in the suit and written statement regarding Major Settlement Plot Number and Map, insertion of corresponding plot number according to consolidation operation in respect of Plaintiffs’ land alone, it would affect right of the Defendants since no C.M.P. No.1717 of 2025 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:20:31 material has been produced as to the comparison of the settlement map and consolidation map, that too at the stage of argument. 5. The Plaintiffs have not stated anything in their petition for amendment (Annexure-4) with regard to the reason of inserting the consolidation plots at this stage except mentioning that the consolidation RoR was published in the year 2001-02. 6. It is seen that in the schedule of the suit, the lands of the Plaintiffs and Defendants have been referred as major settlement plots and khata numbers and the map furnished in the schedule of land also speaks of MS Plot No.1602 and 1603. Therefore, it is obvious that the map as furnished in the schedule of the suit is relating to major settlement operation. It is required to be noticed here that in the matter of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., the amendment should ordinarily be allowed unless the same changes the nature and character of the suit or causes prejudice to the adverse party or it withdraws the earlier admissions. 7. In Chakreshwari Construction (P) Ltd. v. Manohar Lal, (2017) 5 SCC 212, it has been observed as follows:- C.M.P. No.1717 of 2025 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:20:31 “13. The principle applicable for deciding the application made for amendment in the pleadings remains no more res integra and is laid down in several cases. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons [Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 37] , this Court, after examining the entire previous case law on the subject, culled out the following principle in para 63 of the judgment which reads as under : (SCC p. 102) “63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” C.M.P. No.1717 of 2025 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:20:31 8. In the given facts of the case at hand, the suit was filed in the year 1995, i.e. prior to 2002 Amendment brought to the Code of Civil Procedure. After the suit was decreed, it was remanded back in the appeal for consideration afresh and as such so much delay happened in concluding the suit at present. In the suit, when both Plaintiffs and Defendants are contesting tooth and nail, the insertion of corresponding consolidation plot number and khata number in respect of one of the plots, i.e. MS Plot No.1602 would definitely prejudice the adverse party. It is for the reason that, the plot number of the Defendants mentioned as MS Plot No.1603 is not proposed to be indicated with reference to the consolidation RoR. Now if the amendment is allowed, the Defendants are bound to bring corresponding amendment in describing Plot No.1603 with reference to the consolidation RoR, then the further question would arise as to the comparison of map prepared under major settlement operation and consolidation operation. This will further complicate the process of adjudication of the suit. 9. Undoubtedly, the suit schedule properties are in reference to major settlement RoR and map, and there would not be any difficulty in adjudicating the suit as per major settlement RoR without referring to the consolidation RoR. Further, at the time of filing of the suit, the C.M.P. No.1717 of 2025 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:20:31 settlement RoR was operative and the consolidation RoR came into operation in the year 2001, i.e. during pendency of the suit. Therefore, bringing one plot with reference to the consolidation RoR in the schedule of suit leaving the other plot as it is in the MS RoR would certainly cause prejudice to the adverse party as stated above. When no difficulty is noticed or brought on record in the amendment petition in the process of adjudication of the suit by referring the suit schedule land as per MS RoR, the present amendment sought by the Plaintiffs to insert the referral consolidation RoR in respect of their plot only is termed as unnecessary. Thus, to avoid further complication and compulsion on the part of the Defendants at the stage of argument of the suit, the prayer for amendment made by the Plaintiffs is rejected by setting aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 of learned trial court. 10. The C.M.P. is allowed as above. (B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik/Secretary C.M.P. No.1717 of 2025 Page 6 of 6