IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 628 of 2025 Kalpana Mohapatra …. Petitioner Mr. V.Jena, Advocate -Versus- Minati Mohapatra & another …. Opposite Parties CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 13.05.2025 01. 1. Heard Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. No notices are issued to the opposite parties as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 1st February, 2025 at Annexure-5 passed in C.S. No. 145 of 2019 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Soro, whereby, an application for amendment of plaint by him in terms of order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected on the grounds stated. 4. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the W.S. was filed by defendant No.2 in 2019, whereafter, the amendment was sought for in the suit. The submission is that such an amendment was proposed as per Annexure-3 in view of the fact that defendant No.2 claimed previous partition and a compromise decree in C.S. No. 344 of 2007. It is contended that learned court below, however, declined to allow such amendment to the plaint on the ground of delay and laches as it was moved in 2022 long after filing of the W.S. in 2019. According to Mr. Jena, learned counsel such delay is explained away as it was for the fact that the opposite parties had moved the learned court below for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and it was followed by an order on 8th September, 2022. 5. A copy of the application for amendment i.e. Annexure-3 is at the instance of the petitioner and it was subsequent to the filing of the W.S. and in relation to the earlier suit and compromise decree passed therein with a plea that she was not a party to the same. The delay in filing Annexure-3 is on account of the challenge to the suit and for rejection of plaint by the opposite parties, which was disposed of in 2022. In fact, in course of hearing Mr. Jena, learned counsel produced a copy of the order dated 8th September, 2022 of learned court below dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Considering the facts revealed from the record and order dated 8th September, 2022 of learned court below dealing with the application of opposite parties under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and declined, whereafter, the petitioner proposed the amendment vis-à-vis the compromise decree in the suit, the Court is of the view that any such amendment to the plaint is unlikely to change the nature and character of the suit and that apart, the delay is fully explained and hence, the impugned order at Annexure-5 by the learned court below cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, CMP stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 1st February, 2025 in C.S. No. 145 of 2019 by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Soro is hereby set aside allowing the amendment of the plaint with a direction to the petitioner to submit a consolidated plaint and upon receiving the same, the suit shall be proceeded and dealt with as per and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Kabita (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge