IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1076 of 2024 Sanjay Kumar Jena and others …. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Pal, Advocate -Versus- Akshay Kumar Parida and others …. Opposite parties Mr. P.K. Singh, Advocate for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 28.02.2025 04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2. 2. Instant petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 21st August, 2024 under Annexure-1 passed in connection with Civil Suit No.03 of 2021 by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Pipili, whereby, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed for not allowing the amendment of the plaint in terms thereof. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submits that the proposed amendment is merely an elaboration and not likely to change the nature and character of the suit but the same has not been entertained by the learned court below. It is submitted that though partition was pleaded on record but with regard to the details vis-à-vis such partition of the year 1977, the amendment is necessary for a just decision in the suit. It is further submitted that as a right way is claimed in respect of the suit land, such amendment was sought for, but it has been declined. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that if in case, a relief of declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the plot in question is allowed, it would certainly to change the original character of the suit as the relief is for a right of way over the same. 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners abandons such an amendment with a relief for declaration of right, title and interest with respect to Plot No.1175 and submits that the rest of the proposed amendment should be allowed, to which, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 fairly admits that any such amendment without a relief of declaration of title is acceptable. 5. Considering the facts pleaded on record and submissions of learned counsels for respective parties and upon perusal of the proposed amendment, the Court finds that the earlier partition dated 13th January, 1977 since was elaborately pleaded seeking an amendment of plaint, the Court is of the view that the same is unlikely to be change the nature and character of the suit, hence, to be allowed. As far as the relief vis-à-vis declaration of right, title and interest in respect of plot No.1175, as the same abandoned, the Court directs that the amendment is allowed excluding the same. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, the petition stands allowed to the extend as aforesaid with a direction to admit the propose amendment and accept a consolidated plaint excluding the relief of title in respect of Plot No.1175 and thereafter, to consider disposal of the suit according to law. The Court further directs that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pipili shall consider early disposal of the suit preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs. 9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K.Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer