IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.58 of 2025 Golap Chandra Patel …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate -Versus- Badrinarayan Padhee & another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. K. Samantray, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 14.05.2025 06. 1. Heard Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Samantray, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 2nd December, 2024 passed in connection with C.S. No.223 of 2023 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela as at Annexure-5 on the grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the daughter of the petitioner has been adopted by the deceased brother of the opposite parties and she is staying in the suit premises but the opposite parties have instituted a suit seeking eviction of the petitioner and therein, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was moved challenging the adoption and to declare the deed of adoption as invalid in a suit for eviction, which is fundamentally to change the nature and character of the same and hence, was not permissible but it was followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5. The further submission is that the opposite parties are to institute a separate suit seeking such relief and hence, the impugned decision dated 2nd December, 2024 in the suit by learned Court below is liable to be interfered with. 4. Mr. Samanatray, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that the opposite parties did not have any knowledge at any point in time regarding the adoption by their deceased brother and considering the W.S. at Annexure-2 denying the title in respect of the homestead by the petitioner, such an amendment in terms of under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was made and accordingly, learned Court below considering the same, allowed it. The contention is that any such amendment in view of the pleadings on record is unlikely to change the nature and character of the suit as it is alleged, hence, therefore the decision under challenge in the suit is not to be disturbed. 5. A copy of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. as at Annexure-3 is gone through along with the objection filed thereto at Annexure-4. The suit at the instance of the opposite parties is for eviction and subsequently, the relief of declaration of the adoption deed to be invalid has been added having been allowed by learned Court below upon an application as per Annexure-3. The pleading as per Annexure-2 is that the petitioner’s daughter was adopted by the late brother of the opposite parties and she is in occupation of the homestead in question but the petitioner has been directed to be evicted. The dispute is over the adoption of the daughter of the petitioner and not only that, the petitioner has even questioned the very title of the suit schedule property as made to reveal from Annexure-2. When there is denial to the adoption deed with a claim that it was never acted upon and that too, it was not within the knowledge of the opposite parties and hence, the declaration is sought for, Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the Court is of the view that even though the suit is originally instituted seeking eviction but in view of the pleadings on record, such a declaration since has been made, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment was rightly allowed by the learned Court below. In any case, the petitioner shall have opportunity to defend and challenge the claim of the opposite parties vis-à-vis the adoption and the deed of adoption came into being in 2007. The Court is also of the view that for proper and effective adjudication of the suit, since with the amendment of the plaint, the challenge is to the adoption deed as well with such further declaration, the daughter of the petitioner should be impleaded in the suit as one of the defendants as the same is necessary in the interest of justice. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, the CMP stands disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to carry out the impletion of the daughter of the petitioner in the suit i.e. C.S. No. 223 of 2023 and upon receiving such an application, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela shall allow the same impleading her as one of the defendants and thereafter, to proceed to dispose of the suit according to law and at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order vide Annexure-5 dated 2nd December, 2024 in C.S. No.223 of 2023 is hereby affirmed. Page 4 of 4 8. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram