Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1785 of 2025 Babaji Samal ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy -versus- Bijay Samal and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. Maheswar Mohanty O.P. Opp. Party No. 1 to 5 (O CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 13.07.2026 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Defendant. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Plaintiff in C.S. No.434 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, LR & LTV, Bhadrak has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging the impugned order dated 20.09.2025 passed in C.S. No.434 of Page 2 of 5. 2019. By virtue of the impugned order at Annexure-1, the learned trial Court has rejected the Plaintiff’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment to the plaint. 4. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioner at the outset contended that originally the Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a suit for declaratory relief along with consequential reliefs in the pending suit. Before commencement of the trial, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment to the plaint. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the amendment sought for is only clarificatory in nature and, by virtue of such amendment, the Petitioner-Plaintiff pointed to bring on record certain subsequent developments. He further contended that the learned trial Court, by virtue of the impugned order dated 20.09.2025 at Annexure-1 rejected the Plaintiff’s prayer for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the same will change the nature and character of the dispute involved in the present suit and in the event the amendment is allowed, the same will also take away the effect of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. 5. Being aggrieved by such rejection of his prayer for amendment of the plaint, the Plaintiff-Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted before this Court that the learned trial Court has mechanically rejected the application of the Petitioner for amendment of the plaint. It was also contended that the amendment sought for is clarificatory in nature and it does not change the nature and character of the suit. Page 3 of 5. He further contended that it was always open to the Defendants to raise the ground under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC at the time of hearing of the suit. It was submitted that although the application was filed before commencement of the trial it has been rejected by adopting an overly technical approach. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is unsustainable in law. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties, on the other hand, seriously objected to the prayer of the Plaintiff in the present CMP application. While supporting the order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned trial Court, at Annexure-1, learned counsel appearing for the Defendant contended that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality and that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been considered and disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order. While substantiating his argument, he further submitted that in the event the amendment is allowed, it would definitely change the nature and character of the suit. He further contended that by way of an amendment, the Plaintiff falsely introduced a point which has already been finally adjudicated in the previous suit. Therefore, it is no more open to the Plaintiff to canvass the same in the present suit, as such an issue has already attained finality by virtue of the judgment delivered in the previous suit by the very same Court. On such ground, learned counsel for the Defendant-Opposite Party contended that the present CMP Page 4 of 5. application at the instance of the Plaintiff is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the submissions made on law by both sides, this Court observes that the Plaintiff, being aggrieved by the rejection of his prayer for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17, has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. At the stage of consideration of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 the Court is not required to go into the objection likely to be raised by the Defendant under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. The only requirement, is the compliance of the provisions contained in Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. On a careful consideration of the proposed amendment, a copy of which is annexed to the CMP application at this Court is of the view that the same are either formal in nature or to bring on record certain material aspects which would have a direct bearing on the adjudication of the suit, specifically in relation to the subject matter of the suit. Also, such application having been filed prior to the commencement of the suit, there is no legal impediment in considering such amendment of the plaint at the initial stage of the suit. 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has committed an illegality in rejecting the Plaintiff’s prayer under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC vide its order dated 20.09.2025. Further, this Court would like to Page 5 of 5. observe that in the impugned order dated 20.09.2025, the learned trial Court has recorded some erroneous facts. Accordingly, the learned trial Court is advised to be more cautious in future while passing orders. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 20.09.2025 is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the prayer of the Plaintiff for amendment of the plaint is allowed. However, such amendment shall not affect the right of the defendant to raise any objection to such amendment by filing an additional W.S. and he shall also not be precluded from raising a ground under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC and Section 11 of the CPC which shall be adjudicated by the learned trial Court at the time of final hearing of the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is directed to file a consolidated copy of the plaint within two weeks from today after serving a copy thereof on the Defendant. Thereafter, it is open to the Defendant to file their additional W.S. within two weeks thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP application stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT