p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1224 of 2025 Arun Maharana@Arun Kumar Maharana and others …. Petitioners Mr. B. Das, Advocate -versus- Smt. Malati Das and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Rout, A.S.C. for O.P. No.2 Mr. O. Panda, Advocate for O.P. No.1 CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY ORDER 19.12.2025 Order No. 03. 1. Heard Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. O. Panda, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for State-Opposite Party No.2. 2. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 28.07.2025 of the learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore passed in C.S. No.936 of 2006-I, wherein the prayer for amendment by Defendants 7 to 10 has been refused. 3. Admittedly, the suit is at the stage of argument and before it was posted for argument, the survey knowing commissioner was appointed under Order 26 Rule 9, C.P.C., who has submitted its report. The report was accepted by learned trial court with objections raised by the respective parties. Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Dec-2025 13:55:01 Signature Not Verified p. 2 4. Present Defendants 7 to 10 now want to bring the amendment after finding certain change of facts in the report of the survey knowing commissioner to aver the boundary of the suit land by barbed wires instead of pillars with green fence. First of all, the prayer for amendment at such belated stage when the suit is posted for argument is not permissible as per the proviso contained under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. and secondly, looking to the nature of amendment sought by these Defendants, the same is found quite unnecessary in view of the report of the survey knowing commissioner. 5. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the learned trial court to interfere with the same. 6. Accordingly, the C.M.P. is dismissed. ( B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik