Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1330 of 2025 Madhav Kumar ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Prasanna Kumar Panda -versus- Santilata Rout ..... Opposite Party Represented by Adv. - Amit Prasad Bose, Sr. Advocate D.Sahoo, D.K.Sethy, A.Prasad. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 17.07.2026 Order No. 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Plaintiff-Petitioner in C.S. No.1960 of 2021 which is pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge(L.R.), Bhubaneswar has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application thereby challenging the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 at Annexure-4 to the CMP application. By virtue of the impugned order dated 07.07.2025, the learned trial Court has rejected the Plaintiff’s prayer for amendment of Page 2 of 5. the plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the abovenoted suit was filed at the instance of the Plaintiff for a decree of permanent injunction. In the suit, after summons were issued, the Defendants have appeared and they have filed their written statement. He further contended that the trial has not commenced yet. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioners have also filed a suit against the State bearing C.S. No.557 of 2022 with a prayer for declaration that the Defendants, along with the other villagers, are enjoining suit schedule-A property of the Plaintiff and in exchange the Plaintiff is enjoining the Schedule-B land, along with an additional prayer for confirmation of the possession of the Plaintiff over suit Schedule B land, in exchange of suit schedule A land and for grant of decree for perpetual injunction over suit schedule-B land. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that by way of an amendment to the plaint, the Plaintiff seeks to bring on record the fact of filing of the subsequent suit with regard to the self-same property impleading the State as a Defendant. He further contended that since the facts which are likely to be introduced by way of an amendment to the plaint are subsequent development, there is no bar in law in considering such amendment and allowing the same. He further contended that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 is not applicable to the facts of the Plaintiff’s case as the trial has not yet Page 3 of 5. commenced. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned trial Court has committed an illegality and rejected his prayer for amendment by virtue of the impugned order dated 07.07.2025, at Annexure-4 and, accordingly, prayed for setting aside of such order. 6. Mr. Bose, learned senior counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Defendant, on the other hand contended that the Plaintiff has filed a total of three suits including the present one. He further contended that apart from the present suit and C.S. No.557 of 2022, the Plaintiff -Petitioner has also filed another suit bearing C.S. No.1020 of 2019 impleading the present Opposite Parties as Defendant in the said suit. He further contended that all the suits relate to the possession and title over the self-same land. Therefore, all the suits can be tried together by the learned trial Court. Having said that, he admitted before this Court that although suits are pending before different Courts of the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides and on a careful examination of the background facts, this Court found that the Plaintiff in the abovenoted suit has approached this Court being aggrieved by order, dated 07.07.2025, at Annexure-4. By virtue of the impugned order the learned trial Court has rejected the Plaintiff’s prayer for amendment of the suit. On a careful examination of the proposed amendment at Annexure-2 to the CMP application, this Page 4 of 5. Court found that there is nothing wrong in allowing such amendment since it does not change the nature and character of the suit. Moreover, the proviso to order 6 Rule 17 does not apply to such amendment application as the trial of suit has not commenced. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 at Annexure-4. Accordingly, the same is hereby set-aside. Further, it is follow up steps shall be taken by the Plaintiff directed that to file consolidated plaint before the learned trial Court. 8. Considering the submissions made by Mr. Bose, learned senior counsel, which is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that there are three suits relating to the self-same property pending before different Courts, this Court, while disposing of the present CMP application grants liberty to the Parties to move an application before the learned District Judge, Khurda at Puri by filing an application for analogous hearing of the suit. In such eventuality, the District Judge, Khurda shall consider such application in accordance with law and, in the event it is found that the suit schedule property is some and the witnesses to be examined are identical in all the cases, necessary consequential order be passed by the learned District Judge directing transfer of the suit to one Court with a further direction to the learned trial to try the suit one after the other. Every endeavour shall be made to examine the common witnesses to all the suits on one date. Page 5 of 5. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP application stands disposed of. 10. In the event any such application has already been filed, the Parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar for early disposal of such application along with a copy of todays’ order. In such eventuality, learned District Judge, Khurda shall consider such application strictly in terms of Section 24 of the CPC and pass necessary consequential orders within eight weeks from the date of communication of certified copies of the present CMP application. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT