Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27182 (ORI)

Korada Bharati v. Pranayani Sahoo

2026-01-30

A C Behera

body2026
JUDGMENT : A.C. Behera, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner(plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019) against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing(setting aside) an order dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure-7) passed in Civil Suit No.200 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh. 2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner being the sole plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 against the Opposite Parties arraying them as defendants praying for declaration of the Sale Deed No.465 dated 12.04.2010 in favour of the defendant no.1 and the RoR in respect of the suit properties as null and void and the same are not binding upon her(plaintiff). In that suit, after completion of the pleadings of the parties, the plaintiff filed a petition on dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying for amendment of the plaint in order to insert that, “while she(plaintiff) was aged about three years, she was adopted by the original owner of the suit properties in the year 1961 and the defendant no.2 was not adopted by the original owner of the suit properties, i.e., Artabandhu Prusty and his wife Sundarmani Prusty and she(plaintiff) is the sole successor of the original owner of the suit properties being his adopted daughter, in which, the defendant no.2 has no interest along with some other averments relating to the absence of interest of the defendants in the suit properties.” To which, the defendants objected stating in their objection that, the proposed amendment sought for by the plaintiff after disclosure of the defence by them(defendants) in their respective written statements are only in order to defeat/nullify the stands taken by them(defendants), which cannot be allowed at this belated stage on the ground that, the plaintiff had not taken such stands in her plaint initially, for which, she(plaintiff) is precluded under law to insert the proposed amendments in her plaint after disclosure of their pleadings in their respective written statements. Therefore, the petition dated 02.03.2010 under Order-6, Rule- 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. 3. Therefore, the petition dated 02.03.2010 under Order-6, Rule- 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. 3. After hearing from both the sides, learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh as per the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 rejected to the major parts of the above proposed amendments sought for by the plaintiff, but, allowed some minor portions thereof subject to payment of cost of Rs.400/-(rupees four hundred) assigning the reasons that, “the plaintiff(petitioner) has prayed for amendments, for no other reason, but, only in order to patch up the lacunas of her plaint.” 4. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid part rejection to the petition dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the plaintiff by the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh, she(plaintiff) challenged the same by filing this Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 against the defendants arraying them as Opposite Parties praying for quashing(setting aside) the same. 5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner (plaintiff) and the leaned counsel for the Opposite Parties(defendants). 6. It is undisputed case of the parties that, the petitioner filed the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 against the Opposite Parties praying for declaration of the Sale Deed No.465 dated 12.04.2010 executed in favour of the defendant no.1 in respect of the suit properties and RoR thereof as null and void and the same are not binding upon her(plaintiff). In the petition dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908, the plaintiff had prayed for an amendment of her plaint in order to insert the matters, i.e., she(plaintiff) is the adopted daughter of the original owner of the suit properties, but, the defendant no.2 is not his adopted son, for which, she(plaintiff) is the sole successor of the original owner of the suit properties. Therefore, a declaration is to be made that, she(plaintiff) is the owner of the suit properties being the sole successor of the original owner, but, the defendant no.2 is not the adopted son as well as successor of the original owner of the suit properties, for which, the defendants have no interest in the suit properties. 7. Therefore, a declaration is to be made that, she(plaintiff) is the owner of the suit properties being the sole successor of the original owner, but, the defendant no.2 is not the adopted son as well as successor of the original owner of the suit properties, for which, the defendants have no interest in the suit properties. 7. On the aspect of consideration of a petition for amendment of the pleadings under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions :- (i) In a case between Sumana Devi vrs. Darshan Pal and others : reported in 2017(3) PLR-706 that, Amendment of plaint—Amendment sought at the stage when evidence of plaintiffs was yet to start—Nature of suit was also not going to be changed nor any other alleged accrued right in favour of the defendants was likely to be prejudiced. Held, Amendment was sought to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties. Moreover, an opportunity was also grant to defendants to file their amended written statement after amendment of plaint is allowed. Application under Order-6, Rule-17 of the C.P.C. is allowed. (ii) In a case between Vantipalli Surya Venkata Satya Prasad vrs. Gangumalla Suryakantham and others : reported in 2016(4) Civ.C.C.-116(A.P.) Amendment of plaint—Delay—Not a ground to refuse amendment, if amendment is sought prior to commencement of trial. (iii) In a case between Life Insurance Corporation of India vrs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd and another : reported in 2022(4) Civ. C.C.-540(S.C.) that, amendment as per Order-6, Rule-17 of the C.P.C., 1908 should ordinarily be allowed, unless they cause injustice or prejudice to other side and that cannot be compensated in terms of cost, because, the purpose of allowing amendment is to minimize the litigation and to ensure that, all the issues between the Parties are decided in the same proceeding. 8. 8. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner being the plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 had filed the petition on dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying for amendment of the plaint in order to insert the matters as stated above relating to her exclusive title over the suit properties as the sole successor of the original owner of the suit properties denying the interest of the defendants thereon stating that, the defendant no.2 is not the adopted son of the original owner. 9. As per law, when the main object/purpose of amendment of the pleadings is to minimize the litigations between the parties and to ensure that, all the controversies and issues between the parties relating to the subject matter of the suit shall be decided in the same and one proceeding and when the proposed amendment should not ordinarily be refused, unless the same will cause injustice or prejudice to the other side and when in case of filing of a petition for amendment in delay, the same can be compensated in terms of cost and when in case of allowing an amendment, the party, who was opposing the same shall be given an opportunity to file additional written statement against such amendment, then at this juncture, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh should have allowed the entire petition dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the plaintiff(petitioner) instead of allowing the same in part, because, the issues in the suit have not been framed and the above proposed amendment shall minimize the litigation between the parties and the same will not cause any injustice or prejudice to the Opposite Parties(defendants), but, the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh has not done so. For which, the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh in C.S. No.200 of 2019 rejecting the major portions of the proposed amendment sought for by the petitioner(plaintiff) cannot be sustainable under law. 10. For which, the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh in C.S. No.200 of 2019 rejecting the major portions of the proposed amendment sought for by the petitioner(plaintiff) cannot be sustainable under law. 10. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh in the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 through this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner(plaintiff). 11. Therefore, there is merit in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed. In result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner(plaintiff) is allowed on contest. The part rejection to the petition dated 02.03.2021 of the petitioner through the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 in C.S. No.200 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh is quashed/set aside. 12. The petition dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the petitioner(plaintiff) in C.S. No.200 of 2019 for amendment of her pleadings is allowed in full subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/-(rupees two thousand) by the petitioner(plaintiff) to the Opposite Parties(defendants) in total, i.e., Rs.1000/-(rupees one thousand) to each of the defendants. The trial court shall provide opportunities to the defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 for the filing of their amended written statements against the amended portions of the plaint. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible as per law giving priority to the year of filing of the said suit without providing unnecessary adjournments to the parties. 13. As such, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner(plaintiff) is disposed of finally.